Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1872-05-17
English View Of the ''Alabama" claims

e.
English View Of the Alabama" Claims
r b Beaeiic.. Esq, If New Yors. in an al
tiole in the las. number @; the New York f4le-
penleat. aIules oa series Of artioies IL the Lon
/ don Lll- TIars on the Aisbaaa Claims. in the
course Of which that pzper, which i. dessrsei-
/ y high authority on lessl questions in England,
discusses The question Of cur right To r1eten: the
slams for iulilc,; damages 20 the Tribunal of
/ Arbitration. sad the attitude in vbill EngIsai
would place herself By = withdrawal f--u the ar
3 t-ct.on, in manner very different from The
" ty in xai:h some Of the English papers have
discussed them. Mr.. Beueiic; quotes the fol
loving very significant pAsssge from the L9nloa
Lar Tlges Of February 9Th. Speaking Of cur
claims for indirect damages, it says:
els this claim simissable before the s-t.,rs-
t1-t2 Ifs1. isi- vel flaulei: We have a.
resdr stated oar opinion as TO tae merits Of such
ell im il put forward IN Al ordinary seuon;
but ve must examine the present one in
connection with the language Of the
Treaty an1 with the acknoE edged facts
OF the case. From the very commencement
Of the AlzbSna difficulty, many prominent
Statesmen aud large section of the press Of
the United States have urged their government
90 demand from Great Britain compensation 10
the utt-rmost isrthing for even the most remote f.
Losses suffered by them. individually or az IA
ton. Ar. Sumner had, in = remarkable but .
sensational speech, given shape and substance .
to these demands and Mr.. Fisb, in his eQuslIy /
famous dispstch to Mr. Motley, in September, .
1863, had formally adopted them All THIS Was
veil known TO the British Commissioners, and
Mr. Fish IVES one Of the representatives. Of the
other eide with whom they were dealing Yet
they took no preczutions. They obtained from
the United States Commissioners NJ abandon
nent OF the demands that had been SO loudly
aui perss,ently put forward but, on the con-
Tray, they frst stated in preamble, in order
TO d.ssipsie every species Of misconcepuon, hist
their object WAS to remove ana adjust al COM
plsiuts and claims on the psri Of the United
States ana they then concluded trekty to set
de all the claims yrOpiHy out Of acts committed
By the Alebsma,' etc Nov, what is the com
non sense and common Law construction 70 be
put On the words growing out OF when read in
connection with the expressed obieo, Of those who
wrote them? There is nothing On the face
Of the Treaty 10 qualify their generality.
PaTol evidence, il permitted st all - which,
in accordance with the commonest principles,
should not be permitted, the Treaty being under
not detrsct from their effect; it
would simply show that no doubt existed in
either country a. to the nature OF the claims put
forward by the United Ststes-vz rot merely
for losses occasioned by, but for the far wider
ores. which have grown out Of the proceedings
Of the alabama" We have provided for
- all matters in difference in the
cause between the parties" 1t has been urged =
inst our Commissioners were net lawyers, we're
not up 10 their work ,uot fully competent 20 meet
and foil American legal skill snd ingenuity. So
much the worse for England. she has been her ;
own counsel, and hiss had most unmitigsted
fool for her client. The treaty is legal docu-
iue1t aud was intended 10 be such It's fran
eTs we're famed diplomatists and eTudite jurists;
and, like all theorists who intrude upon the Dc (
main Of practice, they have encountered sad hui Il
initiation. Il was the finale to long-coutinued
negotiations l; was legal and not political
settlement; and We must consequently assume
hat its language WAS mast carefully weighed,
md expresses exactly what its psrticpA;ors y,
desired to express. We frankly confess inst
se cannot comprehend the outcry that hiss II
zen raised on the appearance of the American +
'csse" Even supposing the indirect claims Il
lot within the puryew Of the Treaty, lie ii ststes- -
nsnlke, a It dignihe1, is It becoming mighty
stiou 10 shrink or buster because its opponents Ia
I
nent The matter, in fact, is no longer within q,
be power Of either party 1t has been removed =
rom the region Of passion and the srbitrament VI
( war, to the tribunal of reason and law. True GO
nough, we have physically the power to with Of
raw; but withdrawal now would leave q sur ui
pon our nstionsl honor and Judgement. Why ,;
Id we propose arbitration al sll Why did We ~
scent to the court that has been created if we -
mentally reserved the right to repudiate either ,a
he arbitration or the claims that should be e.,
lbmitted? Tho srbitrstors are to - decide all -
lestons that shall be laid before them on the -,
art Of the two governments Do not the ~
reSiei claims come within this provisonl Is ~
OF their remoteness most fitting question for -
e court. What would be thought of person 20,
in an ordinary court of justice, refused to be tb
Ut by the verdict unless judge and jury took 90
S il 'terpretation Of the contract in dispute? FL
le VII, lie matter seems to US sbsurdly simple ~.
,rtSin Jierences have been for a considerable -,
ne exist og between Great Britain and the -
lited Stst,V; the two governments have, after ~,
refulest de liberation, devised a meang for -.
airing away those differences; they have "+'
reed 10 refer Il of them which have grown
I Of certain act to tribunal constituted in
mode and located in place which are decid- III
ly in the advsn 'age CT Great Britain; the -.
bunal has the large VI pOzers and is TO deter 'HA
ne ell questions; and yet Ghe offending party, rep
10 has already spoogiIed, denies the compe- wa
ice of this triba usl to decide what it hs. tho
Ways known to be one of the most important -
the differences. 'le
g But, though we satisfied that the claim, ern
indirect losses are within both the letter and ecu
spirit of the convention, we equally sat psr
ed that they are without foundation. line yid
let be drawn; brt it is for the arbitrators to she
where, and we will not presume to antici- ha,
e their judgment" the
Such language as this from a recognized Eng the
authority on legal questions. lie certainly olH 9,
y strong justification Of the American posi- on
n that the indirect claims should 20 to the We
,rd of arbitration. IN he adiudi,sted a, vb., has
IT they are worth. me,