The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-05-02
WASHING
Or. Houard's Release De-
manded of Spain.
If the Government Refuse the American
Minister to Demand His Passports.
THE CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES.
The Withdrawal Of tho Claims Not Contem.
plated by the United States.

plutCQ ny TIC Uultt0 Mates.
WARRINGTON, May 1, 1872.
The United states Governments Position
ON tho Consequential Damage Ques-
tion.
AS Misrepresentation exists in relation to the case
OF the United States before the Tribunal at Geneva
and IA the community has been excited ON both
sides OF the Atlantic with sensational reports that
the government Of the United States has acceded
to the demand Of Great Britain for the withdrawal
OF the claim for indirect damages pains have been
taken to make inquiry on the subject In well
informed circles.
1t may be asserted with confidence that nothing
could be further from the fact than the stories
which have excited the public The presentation
Of the national, s0-called indirect damages has
been made by the United States at every proper
stage OF the proceedings They stand In the formal
case presented at Geneva In December. They have
not been withdrawn and will not be withdrawn.
They were frst presented to the notice OF Great
Britain by Mr.. Adams under directions from Mr.
Seward. During the excitement and the irritation
caused by the conduct Of Great Britain pending the
rebellion they wore the frequent subject Of COM
plant on the part Of the government Of the United
states. When the Johnson Clarendon Treaty failed
they were found to be prominent topic OF the
leading speech against the ratification OF the treaty
and at once furnished to the public press on both
sides OF the ocean almost the sole consideration in
connection with the difference between the two
| governments. When the Joint High Commission
met they were formally presented by the American
Commissioners to their British associates as part
OF the American complaint, and there Is authority
| for the assertion that from the moment OF their
presentation to the signing OF the treaty they
never challenged or excepted to by the British
|
signed within four days OF the date OF the treaty,
II they had been presented part OF the complaint
OF the American government.
Hany one is at fault for their remaining in the
case 1t is the British Commissioners who sat for
two months In the Joint High Commission with the
written presentation Of these claims before them
and never raised word against their admisslbilty
or the British Minister'S to whom the full proceed
ings Of the Joint High Commission daily tele-
graphed, but who remained silent. These claims
are presented In the case laid before the Geneva
Tribunal in December last the part OF the United
States in the same way as they were pre-
sented before the Joint High Commission
not, as were the claims for property de-
stroyed accompanied with a demand for payment,
but part of the case which the United States haa
the right to lay before the tribunal for Its equitable
| consideration. The government OF the United
! States is of opinion that they are properly within
the competency OF the tribunal and within the sub.
mission intended by the treaty Whether they be
OF the class of claims for which nation is liable
to make pecuniary compensation to another is a
question which has lately elected the opinion OF
some Of the ablest writers international law In
Europe as well az in this country. The fact above
alluded to- that in the American "case" they are not
accompanied with demand for payment, IL evil
dence that the American government has always
held them to be OF different nature, and perhaps
OF more questionable legal admissibty than those
which are called direct" claims, while their historic
association with the Alabama controversy and the
prominence they had acquired imposed the neces
sity Of their presentation to the Geneva Tribunal
In order to prevent their being brought up here
after to disturb the harmony Of the two nations.
1t is in the interest of both governments that
these "claims," which the British Commissioners
neglected TO eliminate from the protocol, or to ex
clude from the treaty should be disposed Of in some
way. This is what the government Of the United
States has been endeavoring to accomplish.
The recent discussion of these claims by the pub
lie press Of this country, and intelligent public SEN
timent as ascertalned through other channels OF
information, have exhibited almost II not en-
tirely unanimous expression of opinion that the
people of this country attach no importance what
to any possible pecuniary award on account OF
this class Of claims. Nearly every leading journal
OF the country has dscaimed the expectation
desire ofany moneyed compensation for the indirect
losses and yet II is the apprehension Of some
enormous mulcting in damages-a payment
heavier than that imposed by victorious
Germany on conquered France-whch has
chiefly excited the British mind IN connection with
this branch of the American cease" The opinion
OF the most eminent continental pubcists and
jursts has been expressed, with a large preponder-
in ia Or Of no n
Arbitration to pass upon the questions which the
United States have proposed to submit. 1t Is due
to candor to state that these eminent writers do
not thereby express themselves In favor OF the la
bility Of a nation for indirect damages.
The claims having been thus presented the Brit
ish government, as expressed In the queens
speech declares itself Of opinion that these claims
are not within the province OF the tribunal. The
United states has already manifested Its opinion
that they are within the province OF the tribunal
ny presenting them, as above stated, in its case.
Great Britain intimates that she may not proceed
with the arbitration unless they are withdrawn.
some Americans call upon their government to
withdraw, thinking 1t to be m8gnanmous, Others
thinking IL 10 be wise. To oil such, Mr.. Disrael
in his speech at Manchester with just appreciation
OF the case has given this wer:'I is impossible
for the United States to withdraw their claimr II
the British government maintains It's attitude, the
two nations are at dead lock. Is the treaty, then
with its hopeful promises and its settlement OF
various questions OF difference, to be abandonedg
The President thinks not, at least not without ex.
hausting every e1ort consistent with the honor
and dignity Of the government. He has not with
drawn any part OF the case. He does not contem-
plate any such withdrawal and has made no pro-
posal for such Withdrawal In the correspondence
which has taken place with the British govern
ment on the subject the Secretary OF
State has most strenuously insisted on the
propriety and the right of this government
10 present its own case In its own way, without
dictation or suggestion from the opposite party.