OCR Text |
Show IJJyW.U. TclesranhLine. THE ALABAMA MUDDLE IN WASHINGTON. Washington, 7. The position taken by gentlemen closely connected with the administration, is that tho British high commissioners perfectly understood under-stood the views of the American commissioners com-missioners in the negotiation of the treaty of Washington, both lrom its terms and assertion iu a protocol form, and that, therefore, our government is altogether justified in presenting the ease as it has, claiming consetpuenlial damages in case the board of arbitration arbitra-tion shall not award a gross sum in satisfaction of tho Alabama claims. This government is willing to stand by tho decision of the arbitrators. It is known that though the British commissioners com-missioners had full powers, they frequently fre-quently consulted their home government, govern-ment, aud acted in accordance with its wishes in all they did This government govern-ment has not yet received tho text of Granville's dispatch to Sehcnck, and therefore cannot take official action on it. There is no probability whatever that our government will withdraw any part of its statement of tho case, but will leave the British government to pursue its own course, leaving tho tribunal tri-bunal of arbitration to act iu accordance accord-ance with the treaty; nor is it likely that our counsel will take any action in order to accommodate the British government. (Jhicaco, S. A Washington special says, although the debate on the course of the English government on the treaty of Washington was not re umed in the senate to-day, but little else has been talked about. Outside of official circles the question is as to whether it was understood at the time the treaty was ratified that tho subject of inferential infer-ential damages should bj referred to the arbitration as assumed in the American ease, has been inquired into thoroughly; and while it must be admitted ad-mitted that there is a good deal of evidence evi-dence on botii sides, the weight of it seems to incline to the British side, for the reason that in the debate in the senate, it wasn't generally held that constructive . damages were included in the terms of the treaty. It is quite clear thai the British commissioners did not think :o, for according to the official correspondence correspond-ence of the state department, minister Sehcnck transmitted under date of August Stb, 1 ST I , a dispatch enciosinc t the proceedings in parliament, in which t appears a speech ofC-ir Stafford Nurih-. Nurih-. cote, oae of the 1-riush comm!siouers, ' wherein he replies to inquiries and criticisms oa the treaty, and says in rc-j'gard rc-j'gard to the Alai-iuix ar.d other ves-. ves-. sels of the same class, there wa no necessity ne-cessity whatever for introducing any limit of time, becaese by mention of particular vessels the class of claims I was sufficiently defined. Again, he ; I says, the American ceuim is.-i oners , t might have raised a question with re-! re-! card to F.O'-Iand's premature reeogm-"Ition reeogm-"Ition of belligerency, and consequential i damages arising from a prolongation , of the war. and in relation also to other 1 questions which this country eou.d not ' (have admitted. Instead of this le- 1 inc the ease, however, the trca'y , a- aciinily concluded. narrowed , ! the questions a; issue very closely, by .tvmriiiirg the reference sol A" to losses ; growii g out of the ae: of particular ve.-.-e's. and so shutting cut a Luge 1 ! tlass ef elaims upon which the Amcri-i Amcri-i , cans had heretofore insisted. This is ,! considered here quite conclusive is to ' ; the uricTstandisg of the Bri:ish com-j com-j missionrrs, while the course ot Sumner ! and one or two others is all that can be positively referred to, on the other : ! side. It is well known tli.it nno of the . j eommis.-i'i!:-:rs, Caleb Cushinr. was . I opposed to the claim for consequential damages, and he therefore most have lj very reluctantly consented, to have it -1 submitted to arbitration. |