Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1872-06-24
The Geneva Arbitration.
Probable EId of the Indirect and sup
Elemental FeaTures-A Glance at the
Correspondence between Secretary Fish
and Earl Granville.

arbitration have gone to Paris TO return with
their families to Geneva. Other gentlemen con-
nected with the board are at ChamauriX. Every
thing in connection with the arbitration beto
kens long stay OF the English and American
representatives at Geneva.
NEW YORK, June pa Geneva special says
the question of indirect claims has been definite
ly settled, and in manner unexpected by any
Of the members of the court. The American
agent and counsel having been instructed by
their government to declare that the government
Of the United States did not seek a money award
Tor indirect losses, but only desired Il settlement
of the principle, Lord Ienterden on the part of
his government called the attention of the court
to the seventh article of the treaty, which gives
the arbitrators only authority TO consider claims
in relation 10 money award, and submitted
that since the United States government de-
clared that they did not seek moaey awards for
these classes of claims they could not be proper
ly entertained by the court. The American
counsel thereupOn demanded Judgment on this
issue by the court. The court took time Tor It's
decision, but 1t is known to have decided against
the admssibility of indirect claims. This judy
ment will be delivered, il is said when the court
meets on Wednesday, the 26th inst and is re-
ported to be acceptable TO both governments.
All the members Of the court have left for Cha
nouniX. They intend returning on Monday or
Tuesday, when counsel on both sides will eX
change the results Of their latest instructions
and arrange the order of business. During the
recess Earl Granville will negotiate with Mr..
Fish on the subject. 1t is believed that when the
arbitrator meet again the sittingS will be pub
lie.
New YORK, June 23.-The correspondence
between the American and English governments
relative 10 the treaty Of Washington is tce-
graphed tonight from Washington. 1t covers a
great amount OF matter previously published
commencing with yolumnOus letters aud tele-
grams from Schenck TO Fish in February, and
cOntiDuiuJ tn fine nreSpnt fine After innUmpr-
able kilograms between Schenck aud Fish, cover
ing the long and frequent correspondence be-
tween Schenck aud Granville, Secretary Fish >,
on June I'd, telegraphed Schenck that although
by literal construction of the senate article,
cases OF bad faith or wliul misconduct may he
held to be within its scope, it is inconceivable
that such can ever be a subject of diplomatic
correspondence with view TO pecuniary com
pensatiOn between two powers such as these now
concerned" Fish con6denlialy tclegraphed
Schenck the same day that if the arguments on
both sides were put in at Geneva on the 10Th,
and England moves TO adjourn, our government
will concur.
On the Sd of June, SchcnGk telegraphed that
Granville desired an adjournment of the arbi-
traitors without having the arguments presented
on the 18th; but Fish Immediately telegraphed
back that this government dissented from such
a movement, and referred to the treaty require
ments that such arguments must be presented
on the 10th of June. If adjournment is contem-
plated by Great Britain with the idea of future
negotiations, it should be understood that this
government cannot negotiate on n proposition
involving the idea that it may be guilty of i'll
ternational ill faith or wllful violation of its
International duties; or that it regards such
acts on the part of another power the subject of
compensation by the payment of damages in
money.
Schenck, on the 9th inst, teegraphed that
parliament was suspicious of the wording of the
q IL
diions to the senate propositions, but Fish tele-
graphed that our government did not deal with
opposition members of parliament, but only
with the British government and would not
agree to any alterations. He says: "lt the
British government adopts unworthy suspicious
as reasons for modifying the proposed senate
atcle, Or suggests that our government will not
in good faith act upon the agreement contained
therein, all further negotiations must close at
once" He then tells Schenck that this govern
ment regards the new rule contained in the pro-
posed article as the consideration, and will ac-
cept 1t as a final settlement of the three classes
of indirect claims put forth in our case, to
which England had objected. He says further,
that any change, however immatera, would in
Yolve discussion in the senate; but, as framed
by the senate, could be ratified in Il few minutes
if agreed to by England. He said our govern
meut had made large concessions for the sake of
maintaining the important principles in the
treaty. 1t can make no more.
Schenck telegTaphed June 9th that the British
government did not share the suspicious of par
lament and others.
Granville sent three notes to Schenclk on the
9th, proposing further alterations and modifca.
tions of the senate article, to which Schenck re
spOnJed by quoting the telegram of Fish of the
day previous.
On the 9Th of June Granville announced that
an adjournment Of the meeting of arbitrator
from the 18th was absolutely necessary and
proposed that joint application for adjourn
ment for eight months be made. If this was
concurred in, then the British government
would deliver to the arbtrators on the 18th the
summary of their argument accompanied by Il
declaration which he endorsed to Schenck for
information of the United States. The declara-
ton states that the argument is only delivered
condltlonally ON adjournment, and gives notice
that it is the intention of the British government
to cancel the appointment of the British arb
traitor and Withdraw from arbitration at the
close of the term fixed for adjournment, unless
the difference which has arisen between the two
governments as to the claims for indirect losses
shall have been removed
Secretary Fish teegraphed Mr.. Schenck June
8, that Granyille's proposition of the Sth would
not be accepted by this government 1t was in
the power of the arbitrator themselves TO adj
Journ upon motion of either party, but this gov
ernment would not join in an application for
adjournment. 1t would not oppose adjourn
ment, out of cOurteSey TO Great Britain: but
this government, neither directly or indirectly
would be party TO an agreement whereby Great
Britain could submit her argument to the tri
bunal cOnditonally, or under any protest or
reservation. The obligations Of the treaty being
reciprocal, If the British government desire to
withdraw or cancel the appointment of their
arbitrator, they must do so without asking the
consent of this government Ii will be the duty
OF the American agent and counsel to repel
very decidedly, and in terms which self respect
~ 4. md
this would terminate instantly all further negO
tations on the part OF this government
Schenck was instructed to send copies of all
kilograms from Fish, and of the correspondence
with Granville TO Davis at Geneva, and to keep
him fully advised Of all further proceedings.
In response to the above, which was furnished
Granville by Schenck, the British cabinet re-
sponded that they only desired time TO perfect
an agreement at which both parties had nearly
arrived. On informing SchenclI of the action Of
the British cabinet, Granville, on June II, stated
that the British arbitrator would repair to
Geneva, and the British agent would be in
slrueted to present TO the arbitrators state.
ment that England regretted the necessity
OF informing the arbitratOrS that the diff
terence between Great Britain and the United
States had not yet been removed, but
that they do not abandon the hope that if
further time is given solution might be found
practicable, and consequently Britain would re-
quest an adjournment for such time as will ena-
bic the supplemental article to be conclu-
ded and ratified between the high contracting
parties. The British government under these
circumstances would not deliver the written ar
gument or lake any other steps in the
intended arbitration if the difference con.
tnues at the end Of the time of adj
journment. The tribunal has full power
to proceed in the same manner as expressed in
the note accompanying the British counter case.
On the 18th, Schenck received long note
from Granville, indicating that upoa recapit-
ulation of the correspondence and kilograms,
the British government believed that the two
governments were substantially agreed upon
the probable intention of the senate, and if
there was any difference between them in prin-
ciple, ii was reduced to the smallest proper
tons. The objections entertained and ex-
pressed by England TO the language of
the senate's amendments are founded upon rea-
sons Of the greatest importance, though 1t is
possible the senate did not inend TO use the
language which the British government believes
the words imply. The American government
states that there are some cases not provided for
in the words suggested by England. II the
United States will state what are the eases In
question, England doubts not but II form of
words would be agreed upon which would be
without the objections applicable TO the wording
of the senale's article England never put forth
words as an ultimatum, and England is willing
TO consider at the proper time other words.
On the 14th, Fish telegraphed Schenck: at is
...l. o.. h, hon "a. ~. NJ