The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-07-28

constructive claims upon which the opinion Of this
country had already been pronounced so strongly
Mr.. Fish asks, aHow could it happen that 30 i'm.
portant feature OF the negotiation this alleged
ence, or to argument, rom Intentions never ex-
pressed to the Commissioners or the govern
ment OF the United States until after the treaty
the treaty did not escape the critical attention Of
Her Majestys Commissioners but was any effort
made to limit or reduce the scope OF the Submission
or TO exclude indirect claims
The answer to this Is that, In the first place. the
British High Commissioners believed that after the
waiver they were agreed with the United States
the submission and in the second place. that these
did limit the scope OF the submission. The British
tsy SsSe 1 To Her w1n
ment both during the negotiation and since the
Of the have
not included, nor intended by him to be included,
in the terms in the submission to arbitration, and
you aware that the British High Com
mssoners objected to the adoption OF form
OF reference to the arbitrators which might
Of ssch CLAIMS and that It was n ses
until after heightened discussion in the Commission
that the terms OF reference, as they now stand in
Her Majesty's government cannot acknowledge
inference on the contrary the precise Claims re-
ferred to arbitration were closely defined and lin
Mr.. Fish writes as though the reference to arbi.
tration comprised ''dinerencesn &C., complaints,
and ''all claims" but the British HIGH Commission
submitted must be both cams growing out Of the
acts committed by the aforesaid vesselsU-f. e.,
The use Of the words 'act S1''c comm iiisi
ming and concession Of beserent rights rom the
enS TIVE Of the Sm as
claims" limits them to the class Of direct ciams
which 1t has, trust, been abundantly shown were
alone known at the time as alabama Claims"
PLAGIARY.
Mr. Fish attaches some Importance in support Of
his views to the words growing OF and "gen-
erically;" but the first phrase is taken from Mr..
Adams letter OF the 31st of October 1858, when, in
forwarding anumber Ofmemorals and other papers
connected with the depreciation of the vessel for
merly called the OretO, and now the Florida,
he observed that ''the conclusion to which 1t
would seem that both governments arrive in regard
to the disposition to be made OF the claims growing
| out OF the depredati0ns OF the Alabama and other
vessels issuing from British ports appears to rem
der further discussion OF the merits OF the question
unnecessary.
No mention whatever of indirect or constructive
CLAIMS n;I had been made at this time and the claims
claims for actual damages. When the same
preston is used again, IL must be taken to have
DISLIKE TO SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.
the Will Wo not follow Mr. Fish into the etmoogy Of
the Alabama claims,' seems to be the same
as the class OF claims known az the alabama
claims" The phrase used in the Staney-John-
son convention serves to distinguish this class
Of claims from every other class of claims which
the United States government might have to pre-
| fer. The Alabama claims have been desig-
mated as class OF claims to avoid the misappren-
sion which at one time seemed to have occurred
| might be construed as meaning only claims
count of injuries sustained from the one vessel Ala
own limited meaning for while ii is quite intellig-
bile that for brevlty's sake the name of one vessel
should stand for Others OF particular class OF
which II Is the principal example, it appears to be
contrary to all reason that the name Of such par
tcular ship should be used to describe claims for
general national losses, such as those for the
DECLINE OF THE COMMERCIAL MARINE
OF the United States and the prolongation of the
war. Mr. Fish, with reference to the remark in his
despatch of the 27th Of February that the indirect
claims are covered by one OF the alternatives of the
treaty, states that the government of the United
the alternative power given to the Tribunal of Arb
tration OF awarding sum in gross, in case it finds
that Great Britain has failed to fulfil any duty
of PERMITTING to board OF assessors the determine
ton OF the validity Of claims presented to them and
treaty, after stating the three rules, proceeds
Her Britannia Majesty has commanded her High
that Her Majesty's government cannot assent to
the foregoing rules as statement of principles OF
international law which were in force at the time
that Her Majesty's government agrees those claims
the arbitrators should assume, &C.
Article prOvides:-
The said tribunal shall first determine as to each
vessel separately whether Great Britain has by any
act or omission failed to fulfil any OF the
duties set forth in the three foregoing rules,
| or recognize by the principles OF international
! law not inconsistent with such rules, and shall
certify such fact as to each OF the said vessels In
case the tribunal find that Great Britain has failed
to fen any duty or duties as aforesaid it may, il it
| think proper proceed to award sum in gross to
be paid by Great Britain for all the claims referred
to IT, All the claims must mean all the claims men,
MR.. FISH ADMITS
that the indirect losses are not covered by what
he terms the other alternative" of the treaty,
viz, the proviso in article 10, that
In case the Tribunal finds that Great Britain has
foil In tl fau 1pfu .l,,tiaa
nigh contracting parties agree that a
to ascertain and determine what claims are valid
anu what amount or amounts shall be paid by
the liability arising from such iailure, as to each
vessel according to the extent of such liability as
decided by the arbtratOrs.
Mr.. w. Beach Lawrence, the distinguished Ameri-
and published in the Springfield Independent, OBJ.
"As in each case determined against Great
Britain the Board Of Assessors are, by article TO-
ascertain ana determine the amount which shan be
count of the liability arising from such failure
each vessel according to the extent OF such liabi-
indirect damages. Besides the difficulty
nature, there would DC the further embarrassment
OF apportioning the amount OF injury growing out
OF the acts Of each vessel in the general account.
Is It possible that the assessors are to decide what
part or
THE rRoIoNGArIoN OF THE WAR
Is to be assigned to each vessel? am aware that
there IL provision that the arbitrators may, after
they have decided as to each vessel, separately
award sum in gross for all the claims referred to
them. cannot, however perceive how that pro-
vision In any wise extends the scope OF the power
of the tribunaln
Her Majestys government cannot perceive IL
either. BY both articles seven and ten the arbl-
trators are to determine the extent of liability OF
Great Britain "a to each vessel--i. p. as to each
cruiser separately. throughout the claims
are strictly CONNECTED Win the acts Of
the cruisers. Mr.. Fish acknowledges
that II the claims are considered in
detail the Indirect losses cannot he taken
into account, and as yet, he states, they
have been presented at Geneva not as claims for
which specific demand was made, but as losses
and Injuries consequent upon the acts complained