New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1872-02-23

essentiallto n termination of all dsputes-naturaly
and Immediately followed and was immediately
acceded to- IL was in fact direct following of the
precedent established in the Treaty OF 15. ratihed
by Washington. That in this Treaty no such vision
as consequential damages was INDUCED Is seen III
the full exact history and commentary OF its seyeIai
articles by Alexander Hamilton In this Drei
ANALYSIS Of this basis correspondence caIeluiiS
weighing its language no evidence is believed to be
seen of any contemplation by either party VI 'no
decision by arbitration of any claims from tneH
patnre not susceptible of any definite adjustment or
admeasurement. That any such intended lnpracu-
cable adjustment was not probable, must be ADMIT
ted becouse il would be unreasonable: ana the
more manifest this is because no government OF
sane individual would agree to ubmitlmmeasulaDlo
things to an arbitration, and for the conclusive
eoson that the avowed object of the negotiation of
which treaty was the proposed result was "A full,
nerfect and final settlement Of all the claims hereln-
before referred to-" and that discussion OF such
consequential claims or matters could not
have terminated in the great end proposed
This is the view taken by the writer AFTER
a perusal of the correspondence and OF the existing
Treaty reference having been made to the obJec-
tion by the American High Commissioners to the
claim for damages from the Fenian raids, as not en-
braced in the scope of tho correspondence and not
mission. and to its having been abandoned for the
reason assigned, that portion of the claims were
of a constructive and inferential character" refer
ence may also be made TO paper of much less iorce
the admission in tho sixth chapter of the case pre-
sented on behalf Of this country simpossbc Is
the language " it is impossible for the United States
to determine it is perhaps impossible for any one TO
estimate with accuracy, the vast injury which these
cruisers caused in prOlODging the war" This Ian
guage on both sides would Indicate that claims Tor
indirect or inferental or consequential damages
were not in acknowledgements neither expressed
nor implied.
But passing all this by. the question and the only
question is, What means the text of the Treaty
careful analysis of this Treaty, as well as OF the
originating correspondence, shows cOnclusiyey that
no indirect or consequential damages were thought
of. or claimed. or recognized, OF admitted by either
of the contracting parties.
The first article recites 1.-THE differences which
had arisen and existed. growing ont of the acts
committed by the Confederate cruisers, " known as
the Alabama claims :" and, having stated the regret
of Great Britain for the escape and depredatons OF
those vessels, Gin order to remove all complaints
and claims on the part of the United States and to
provide for the speedy settlement of such claims 1t
is agreed that all the said claims growing out oil
acts committed by the aforesaid vessels, and generic
o1Iv known IS the Alabama claims shall be referred
TO a tribunal Of arbitration" The second article, 1t
is true provides that tho arbiratOrs shall proceed
impartially and carefully to examine and decide all
questions that shall be laid before them on the part
of the two Governments and this is interpreted as
opening the door to every possible question that
might be suggested thus including indirect or con-
sequential damages. Immediately following the
preceding article and keeping in view the language
;cIo hot Rrita
the Alabama claims the true, honest interpre-
tation of this second article must be that
il referred to the questions in respect to those
claims and to nothing else. But, IL any
doubt could exist. as to this being the correct
interpretations it is settled by Article VI Its Ian
guage is ain deciding the matters submitted to
the arbirators they shall be governed by the fol-
lowing three rules, which are agreed upon by the
bioh contracting parties rules to be taken as APP
pcable to the case and by such principles OF inter
national law not inconsistent herewith as the arbi-
traitors shall determine TO be apphcahle 10 the case
These rules are required TO be applicable 10 the case
If the case or cases presented be such those rules
are not and cannot be applicable to. they are such as
the orhitrators are not called upon or permitted TO
decide for they could not be governed by Them III
the case or cases presented be such as the principles
of international law not inconsistent with these
rules" are not and cannot be applicable TO, then they
orc sucb as the arbiratoIs cannot take into COnsid-
Grafton What are these rulesf The first requires
the exerton of due diligence to prevent the hitting
out arming or equippng within the jurisdiction OF
neutral Government of any vessel winch IL mas rea-
sonable ground to believe is intended to cruise OF 10
carry on war against Power with which IL Is al
neace and also to use like diligence to prevent the
departure from its jurisdiction Of any vessel IN
tended TO cruise or carry as above, such yes
oil ado whole
mart within such jurisdiction to warlille use.'
The second forbids neutral government Ito per
NIT or suffer either belligeTent to make use OF It's
norris or waters ca the base of naval operations
against the other OF for the purpose of the renewal
or augmentation of military supplies or arms, OF the
recruitment of men," The third Obhges the neutral
government "tO exercise due diligence i'll It's own
ports and waters and as to all persons within It's
jurisdiction to prevent any violation of the fOreg0-
| ing obligations and duties" The compass, extent,
pnTport of these rules manifest 1t were almost
folly to put the question, Do either OF them apply
is either of them applicable to claim as stated III
the American Case for the lOssiln the transfer OF
the American commercial marine to the British flag,
or TO "the proongatiOn of the and the addition
Of a large sum to the cost of the and the sup
pression of the Rebellion" This obviously being
not so. and the Treaty making no provision else
where for such any other indirect damages, there
is no ground Of controversy this head and there
ought to be no controversy of this sort between ma
tons entering into treaty to preserve peace, and
admitting the obligations of good faith in the very
rules agreed upon and in recognition of the
binding force of the principles of international law.
That the TO be the subjects of arbitration were
10 be such and others than those to DO regulated
by the three quoted rules and by the principles of
international law not inconsistent with them, is con-