New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-05-17
DAMAGES ~ THE BEHHING SEA CASl


The position Of the American counsel at Paris
concerning the question Of damages 10 be paid
by the losing party in the lIchring sea arbitia-
ton has been much misunderstood. II was at
first incorrectly reported. Senator Morgan and
Mr. Phelps were made TO say that they could
give no assurances that the ntcd state, would
admit pecuniary liability to England even If the
court decided that their seizures Of British ships
were illegal and unustabc. The next day,
however, this report was corrected, and the in
cident it referred to described more fully. II
then appeared that the controversy was merely
as to how the liability should be a.ccrtaincd and
fixed. Sir Charles Russell had assumed in his
speech that the arbitrator were 10 perform this
duty, whereupon Mr.. Phelps called his attcn-
ton to the eighth article of the Arbitration
Treaty, which was in these words:
The high contracting parties having found Thorn
selves unable 10 agree upon reference which shall
include the question OF liability Of each for the In
turtles alleged to have been sustained bv the other.
or by its citizens. In connection with The claims pre-
sentcd and urged by II; and being solicitors that
this subordinate question should not Interrupt or
longer delay the submission ana determination Of the
main questions do agree that either may submit 10
the arbitrators any question Of fact involved In said
claims, ana ask iOT HnUlnS lu' uN'7iON
Of liability Of either Government upon the facts found
~ he the subject OF future negotiation.
The history of this article is found in the
correspondence of the two Governments for the
year Immediately preceding the signing of the
Arbitration Treaty. Lord Salisbury brought
forward the liability question by suggesting
that of course if the American Government lost
it would pay for the ships il had seized. The
President replied certainly, if the English Gov
eminent in the event of its losing. would agree
to pay for the seal its subjects had unlaNfully
appropriated. Lord Salisbury dcmurred 70 this,
declaring that there was difference between
Governments liability for acts OF lis own
and for those Of its nationals. The Presidcn,
denied the application of this point to the case
in dispute, because the British Government
was defending the acts Of its national; and
interposing to prevent us from putting a stop
to them. England, he said, could not forbid
us to protect what we claim a. our property.
and, at the same time, profess responsibility
in case our claim was held to be good. The
President urged that liability be admitted on
each side, and that the treaty be made TO pro-
vide for the assessment by the arbtrators upon
the loser of such damages As they found the
winner to have sustained.
In view of this fact and of Lord Salisbury,
steady refusal to accept President Harrison
proposition, the performance Of Lord IIannen
and Sir Charles Russell last week was. to say
the least of it, audacious. They protested to
desire the Commission to do precisely what
President Harrison demanded and Lord Sails
bury obstinately declined to peDmit it to do,
and when Senator Morgan and Mr.. Phelps ex-
planned that under the treaty the Commission
could only declare the facts, Lord IIannen
brusquely retortcd that in that case. the whole
arbitration was q failure. He was oblivious Of