Show THE ENGLISH TREATY mr r thomas pa a a I 1 lend of b the ho united states 11 id and the feeling fur for him in ia thia caari cauri ia u so eo kind that lin bia sitf letter to the tri artl blene ani upon Illa Tready difficulty ma be considered as aa the ahot v ew cw bf what anny be call ad thi the Anteri alib party part irk in eng land had mr says in it substance fuff lance that there was ft a certain in regard to the we havo have violated in the presentation of out ou icse ase under tle treaty the understanding he gays ay was that there was wa to bo be no claim toe fot indirect losses to 0 o constructive damages wo lve hac bate lican th ile fame made by others there was an understanding that certain trania f points dials were not dot to be included but that we were to be satisfied with in alp with tho the concession of 0 certa iii principles an and A tho the payment of actual and proved losses but if il there were tuch such an aa who were the pal carlies ties to it 1 l whore is tho the record of it il I 1 mr really accuses the united states slates HOT T croni ont odthe of the almost dw di ahonor honor no na treaty of which the cardinal card caid iaal loal condition is the reference of 0 disputed points to an n arbitration can be inter cintr prated by what is ia vaguely called a a ta tacit c il understanding tho the essential co St andio between the ori or is ii recorded as i it wi was in this cose case when ben national parties to an ordinary treaty differ ta as to its ita hagni they will very properly often refer it to fric friendly adly adjudication but bat when the treaty itself provides I 1 for nuch euch a settlement there is no question left except that of accepting the award of the arbitration la in the clio care odthe of the treaty of washington the claim of an understanding must mast bo be relin Illi blied because the very question at esaue e was irai not left t to anderau understanding the Ame american Americ ln ease cabe us as we show showed c lat week bas been the same it has always been beba composed compO Bcd ni fit two claims for direct and indirect ina inac es c a to in the very protocol to which mr hughes hofira it in if expressly presely ci leej that the right to demand the indirect losses was not waived if tho be amicable settlement was not ot made that amicable amic ablo settlement was an I 1 apology and the payment of a grom sum 7 and england declined it that lai having ing failed and abo right oc claiming I 1 in in dire direct C flossea oss the treaty was deviated negotiated by which every question no toa every claim were referred N 4 the tribunal anal I 1 the af r the treaty ola a ill clr bag a h arc iii alint ho malt it be e CIO can not be finally faulty vi ui the partial parti cl tho high parties agree that all the said raid claims growing w out t of pets committed by the faor iove assels shall he bo referred erred to a tribunal or of arbitration and that meau means bays mr hughes the claims anming from velela actually and unlawfully seized and destroy destroyed ca but why IT a are re not the of pursuit F an w andtius he enhanced pay payments ments 0 of inbur ance alc and ad the prolongation of the war to be considered 11 as aa growing out of f acta committed 1 ly the iho aforesaid veC vecas ls because every body knows that they were not rde meant auti says mr hughes bat ho he must cio ewe as aa we 0 do not know it in this court cou coultry try atry and it is ia the very tery queston uc stion that we have referred to lo geneva not to E england it 12 ii very vers ev evident idd 1 e n L why the ED gibb people and mr r G Glada 1 tono be annoyed by this view ol of tie the subject they had bad laughed lot lit III abo idea of consequential dannora as growing out of the accord 0 belligerent rights righta to the and when general grant stated that leach each nation inest decide lor for itself when to recognize belly rency ahl ua doubt edly adly con the remar as a ro ie ilion of our oar cl ainu jal claimon claim of indirect loss remained it was wa cot imal tho the proclamation but cupoo tho the beta acts of alo LL aforesaid vessels A aad 13 d the be amerian concession ill ia the iho treaty was oa the lh reference ref ernce or of both the iod irot mind ani direct claims to a which milt I 1 award for neither this tb is in a point which mr rollies find and big fail to fee the united states said 1 that deep lind and universal itar il to in wn was the national mC bat ional tenso genso of injury and great as wu to ike po isible amount of the iho claim they fro art ar yet of and to avoid the lobance of would in III consideration of the cypre 8 ioda of regret and of the F a of international lle entire pecuniary question que alioa to the tribunal should shonu that tribunal tribunal not mot a wari ward the ibis united i a stogie jul lar they ibey will acido by tho the treaty chii which A contains the regret and the im proved law mr will abat the pride of agli ahm 1 e IT is r by the imp that aba t the they could uld possibly hit have left eft the chaa in a bounk am to the deci decision siou or of etc it at geneva lint bat that lie 11 oula insist that hat fogland should ilia di regard the th irwy if her own view I 1 ia 8 not lot conceded to ia advance of if 1116 alibi ili Ir stion for which the alio treaty provides is 19 a position so BO singular fin gular and antens llo LID that wa e mil it expect it to tj bo be la elie united states the ali E theory or of the tb trea tr and not that of the cited stance we think that it covers indirect lotio fogliana Kogl nil thinks that li it does not geneva must tie de aijo alio TOO lebin tho lifar pers IVY |