The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-02-19
ENGLAND.

~---
Extracts from tho Opinions Of fhe London
Press the Washington Treaty and the
American Case.
The London Times OF February concludes an
article as f0Ows:-
Let us, then, once more state clearly what It is
and what 1t Is not TO which Great Britain objects in
the American case. II Is the more necessary to do
this because some OF our New York contemporaries
seem To be laDOrlng under strange confusion OF
thought as to the object and limits or the
Geneva arbitration, anticipating extravagant 'coun-
need hardly inform our readers that no counter
claim whatever has been made or could nave been
made In the BRUSH case. 1t was an essential con.
dilion OF the Geneva arbitration that 1t should
only take cognlzance OF American claims against
place herself IN thus unfavoraSie position, with.
out the power or pleading seton, was one OF
.lndirect lossesu being struck out OF The United
States account There were. however, Otner
tng TO a Sac-ifCe, which 1t IS absurd to suppose
Great Britain could have made without any equiva
lent Whatever BY deviaung from all diplomatic
tradition and precedent so lar as to record an ex-
preston OF national regret in the preamble OF the
treaty. by accepting rules Tor the decision of the
questions TO be brought before the arOltratOrS
which Great Britain holds to De new in the law OF
nations. and by waving altogether her right to 1n
0emnity for the Fenlan lnvaslons OF Canada the
British Commissioners surrendered as much as II
was possible to surrender without beraylng the
ratified their acts Great Britain firmly declines to
stand on her defence against claims. the with
Of the whole agreement
From the London Observer Of the 4th we copy the
folowing:-
IA communication has, 1t is reported on good
autnorlty, been already forwarded from our gov
the claims OF the United States for indirect
damages as put forward IN the ra american
formed Is most friendly IN its tone and expresses
an earnest desire on tue part or Her Maestys gov.
eminent for the due carrying out OF the Treaty OF
Washington At the same time 1t states in distinct
terms that any liability for indirect damages was
treaty, and declares that England cannot consent
- submit TO arbitration her LIABILITY In respect
such damages Is to be regarded as an open ques-
the London Daily Nesos Of the 9th also has an
article on the subject. which ends in the following
Manner
1t is as clearly due to the American people and
clare distinctly that we cannot accept arbitration
upon claims founded on indirect losses. Il
say. as actually they do say, :.Never
minds 1t pleases us to put them In; but
must take Il that the American scase is a serious
document. We know that 1t mas been referred to a
which the members Of that tribunal Will CONSIDER
- the extent OF the reference which has been
ana what IS excudsS rom T. ana their suae
their only guide-wlll be the instrument which
line Of ne rns so and
their authority. Most unfortunately 1t now appears
that this very document Is differently understood
by the parties whose agreement 1t was supposed to
express and, as 1t seems was so understood from the
nrsL At any rate we can speak with confidence on
the sense IN which the British ratified the
Treaty OF Washington. The debates in Parliament
last summer showed most clearly to the whole
world that the Foreign Minister OF this country and
his colleagues. explained and defended the treaty
rs excluding the reference OF claims for In
direct losses TO the Geneva Tribunal. Now
that the discrepancy has been made manifest
by the publication OF the American case, and atten.
ZION has been drawn to the precise language Of
have regretabe ambiguity Nevertheless,
h me sense Wnce we mmaerstood them mas
world, and 1t ID not our fault II the difference
has only been brought TO light alter the
We wish this arbitration 10 be real; we cannot
therefore, proceed with 1t on the mere chance that
the tribunal will exclude demands which, in any
case We do not intend to admit We wish IL to be
nnal; we cannot, therefore, run the risk OF learn
judgments to the direct losses, but leave the
indirect losses, as not included In the reference,
We wish for an honest termination OF all our dii-
ferences with the United States, and therefore we
deal with them frankly and ask Tor frank treat
ment In return.
We make the following extract from an article in
the London Telegraph Of the 5tn:-
We empharcally dsclaim the slightest notion that
any thought derogatory 70 the perfect good faith
OF the arUtrators has entered into the universal
protest OF England against the indirect claims.
There has been no fear as to the nature Of the
Court; there mas been solely a frm and clear
Determination that certain matters largely anecT-
snail not be permitted even to appear before the
tribunal. We cannot let the Indirect claims be-
come 30 much as matter for argument; and we
have thrown not the iantest Impeachment on the
pr0bity OF the Court In simply maintaining that
certain questions were never Intended to come
within It's competence. On this point therefore, the
Americans have taken the start In bringing before
the world at all the mere possibility that the trlbu-
nal might be found prejudIced or corrupt We
DO not wish TO dwell ON the point Let 1t be
enough to say that IN transaction OF SO vast
magnitude ana OF such moment To the whole
race, no statesmen would be found willing TO
hand down tneir names with infamy 10 posterity
rs hirelng and unjust judges Another phase
Of the informal American answer merits as
1t admits, fuller discussion The NEW YORK
on the 81 ans
them on, In vague enough fashion, against the
doubtedIy lose through the war much more tnan
the United states directly lost II we set aside
We to bring forward an estimate Of the damage TO
our cotton industry alone, botn as regards the
money losses OF e MASTERS ana ne terrible agony
We mlgni speedily "foOt up" total little II at all
snort q the American OIL for war costs
single source OF inairect injury to England; Tor
Q country ike ours begins TO lose in hundred
OF its commercial and industrial action Is dis
.turbed by war-even Dy war IN when IL has no
Or statesman for moment EN- dreamed q bringing
into tine Arbitration Court demands Tor compen-
direct losses Claims there are BY British SUBJECTS
70 large extent 'gr0wIng out Off the somewhat
reckless and defiant way IN which the right Of
blockade was stretched at the Bermudas 1T the Ba-
hamas and worst OF oil. on the Rio Grande, but moi
one penny Will be demanded by the British govern
ment which cannot be shown to Signify az imme-
date and appreclabe material loss inflicted on per-
sons under the protection OF the British nag II Is
little better than puerile 10 attempt Justification
of the American indirect claims Dy alleging that
they were formulated merely 10 take the WIND
eC Of ns s ns Win 0 ae neg ns
admission OF interdependence between the extray-
agant demand groundlessly adduce on behalf
OF The United StaLes and the extrav8gant demand
qroundIessly appfehended on the part OF England.
il the question came to mere verbal con-
Test as to which party was the heavier In
direct loser england could at once neutralize
the American case by claims which would
De every whit as wen warranted az those
preferred on behalf of the limited States. II