New-York tribune., 1873-04-08
NEW PUBLICATIONS.
1rsH1NG ON TIE TREATY OLE WASHINGTON.

In the introduction 20 tllS NOlulle, tho d"'"'' Wv
scribes the negotiations that led TO the establish
nent of the treaty of Washington which he regards
as the most interesting of all the great diplomatic
acts Of the age Il settles no less thnn five different
points of dispute some of which were OF nature
10 expose the peace of the two nations to imminent
peril Great Britain made the decisive advance
toward reconciliation by her consent TO the appoint
ment of commissioners. With the high character
of the conference ON both sides, the success oi the
negotiation was foregone conclusion Inc issues
Of peace and war were in the hands of that Illus
trious body Happily for the world, the negotiators
were equal to the emergency both in courage and IN
statesmanshp. The treaty which was concluded on
the sth of May, 1871 received the prompt approval
OF the respective governments, and has already at
tanned the dignity of monumental act.
The most important portion of the work is devoteo
by the author to the provisions of the treaty relat
ING TO the Alabama claims, which he discusses at
gleat length, bringing forward many considerations
that NAV be of interest to some of readers. The
arbitration for the adjustment of the Alabama claims
was organized at Geneva Dec IS, 1871. consisting OF
Mr Charles Francis Adams on the part OF the United
States Sir Alexander Cockburn on the part OF Great
Britain Count Frederick Sclopis appointed by the
King OF Italy; Mr.. Jacob Stampti appointed by 'he
President Of the Swiss Confederation; ana inc
Baron dItaiuba, appointed by the Emperor OF
Brazil The yemacular tongue of Count SeloWS
was Italian that Of the Baron dItNuba Portuguese
and that of Mr. Stgmpni German. Count Sclepis
understood English. and Mr.. StPmpth was able TO
read it, but without speaking. All the arbltratorS,
however. were well acquainted with French. and
the discussions of the Tribunal were carried on III
that language The American Case" was trans
lated from English into French as to be pre-
sentcd simultaneously in both languages at the
meeting of the Tribunal an advantage which was
not provided for by the British government. The
American Case and documents are contained IN
eight octave volumes. the British Case" and dOcu-
ments in three.
The uerusal of these Cases" according TO the
author. who was of counsel for the American Gov
eminent. shows that the United States were the
plaintiffs and Great Britain the defendant IN suit
at law for the recovery of damages in reparaton of
ALLEGED injuries In common course of procedure
the plaintiffs counsel would open his case and put in
his evidence. the defendants counsel would then
OMEN the defense and put in defensive proofs; and
after he close of the testimony both sides, the
defendants counsel would argue in CLOSE for the de
fease and then the plaintiffs counsel in final close
for the plaintiff. But here, on the contrary, the
argument and proofs of both defendant and plaintiff
went in at the same time, under the name OF the
Case of the respective parties. The British Case,
of course could only answer the American Case by
conjecture and anticipation The respective Counter
Cases of the parties TO go in together in like
manner in April and their respective Arguments in
June-so that the Counter Cases on each side would
he a reply 10 the previous Cases and the Arguments
TO the previous Counter Cases. This course was by
no means preudicia TO the United States as plain
tfs while it was very advantageous TO Great Britain
as defendant.
When the American Case was presented, its true
character as the opening argument for the United
States, was Inexperienced in England. 1t seemed
to he forgotten that the proper place for replying to
it was in the British Counter Case, and not i'll the
British parliament, or the newspapers of London.
The clamor to which il gave rise continued for sey
eral months and, fact, until the final decision of
the Tribunal. In the opinion of the author the
American Case was not only document OF singular
ability learning, and forensic force, but was tenn
pegate in language and dignifed III spirit. 1t was
not indeed, so cold document as the British Case
but that is matter of taste, and does not call for
criticism on either side. There was no just cause Of
exception the author insists, TO the general tenor
spirit OF style of the American Case Its facts are
pertinent its reasOnngs are cOgent. its conclusions
are logical and this explains the emotion ii excited
in England. On reading it, the eyes of people were
opened to the fact that Great Britain about to
be tried before a high court constituted by three
neutral governments Intelligent Englishmen, too
began
the United States. Discomfort with the treaty it
self doubtless had much to do in England with the
objections to the Case" The British ministers had
negotiated the treaty in perfect good faith They
saw in it nothing that cOnhicted with the honor Of
either Great Britain or the United States. PaTlia-
nent had accepted the treaty without serious Oppo-
stion, and il was, beyond question, heartily ap-
proved and welcomed by the nation.
But ON reading the American Case many English
men yielded to an exaggerated sentiment in favor OF
Engishlaw as distinguished from that of continental
Europe and of Spanish and Portuguese America.
But the statesmen of three neutral nations appointed
as arbitratOrs at Geneva, were not likely to share
the English opinion of English law. They were re-
garded with a certain indefinite dstrust as persons
outside Of the experience of most Englishmen. Many
would have preferred a tribunal made up OF English
men and Americans.
With regard 10 the question of indirect claims,'
Mr. Cushing maintains that the expression is incor
rect They are neither claims for indirect or con-
struetive losses or damages nor for "remOte and
consequential damages but for national injuries
inflicted on the United States as a government; in
addition to the indemnity to private citizens on ac
count Of the destruction of their property This was
the view taken by the President in his in
stTuctons to Mr. Motley Sept 25, 1869. and
was accepted by the British government in the
elaborate Observation" appended TO Lord ClaTen-
don's dispatch Of the ensuing November. Now,
argues Mr. Cushing il is cearthat national claims
are not claims for indirect constructive loss
any more than indi gdual claims. In fact through
out the discussions before the Tribunal. the British
government maintained that all the claims Of indi-
vidual citizens for the destruction Of their vessels by
Confederate cruisers in the nature Of indirect
and constructive damages, and therefore not reeov-
cradle either by the common law of England OF by
the civil law as practiced on the Continent The
Treaty, moreover referred in unequivocal terms 10