The Portland daily press., 1882-05-15

prolongation of the war, and the United States
acquiesced in that.
Now let me call your attention to the atti-
tude of the United States upon the subject.
The United States had established certain rules,
and it wanted those rules construed; but it did
not want them construed SO as to hold us to a
liability of great damage in the future Why?
Because the United States in the future was
alton, and hence the United States did not de-
sire to have these rules construed too sharply
against neutralS.
If these rules should be construed too sharply
against Great Britain, and we should under
that construction get million or more dollars,
then the next time the discussion would come
up on our liabilities, and you will at once see
that we would probably in the future be in
danger of being heavily and severely mulcted
ourselves.
Hence we had an interest there different from
individual claimants The individual claim
ant wanted to get the greatest amount of mon
ey that he could get. But the United States
wanted him TO get it only upon principles
which would be perfectly SAFE for the United
States in their future history. Hence you see
the whole bent of the argument on the part OF
the Government of the United States must nee
essarily have been turned toward giving these
rules such construction as would protect us
in the future against danger, somewhat to
the detriment of the claim for what had been
done in the past.
rules construed for the parties that would be
represented there, but that they should be con-
strued in reference to the future history OF the
country. Hence the United States very readi-
ly acceded to the proposition that Great Britain
WAS not TO be held liable for the prOlongation
of the war, because we did not dare ourselves
to enter upon that field of possible liability. 1t
was not for our interest to do it, and we refused
to do it.
So. also, when it came to the question of ex-
fr1 Wa fYf1aG
ton of excnlpated and iacupated cruisers was
simply this: with regard to the inculpated
cruisers Great Britain was declared to have
been lacking in due and proper diligence,
whereas with regard to the excuipated cruis-
ers she was released of every liability on the
ground that she had used just such diligence
as was proper. And you can see that 1t wa
not for our interest to have that rule drawn
too strictly, because when we come to act as a
neutral power it might be damaging to us If too
heavy load of diligence was thrust upon US.
That is the interest which we, as nation,
had an interest which modified orr demands
in regard to those claims.
Consequently when we got through we were
bound to ourselves distribute the award IN a
manner that would take into account the Stu
alton under which we got it. so our Govern
ment always insisted, from the very beginning.
that it should have the right and privilege OF
distributing this award, and We insisted upon
it for the reason that in no other way could
justice be done
Let me give you simple illustration. Sup
pose lot of clients go to an attorney and say,
I'VE want Won to take our cases and manage
them all in lump. You have some interest
Of your own which you must look after: row,
take our cases and manage them also" he
SAYS. al will do so, but am going to LOOK GU,
for my own interest as well as for yours; and
when { get through will divide whatever
get among you as / think fair. NOW, Will you
consent 10 that?" They say that they VIII
consent 10 it. Now, if be is an honest man
1 ana divides whatever he may obtain upon fan
and reasonable principles, what complaint can
| be made against him?