ALABAMA CLAIMS. 37 



legal discussions before the Tribunal, the British Gov 

 ernment steadily maintained 1 that all the claims of in 

 dividual citizens for the destruction of their vessels) 

 by Confederate cruisers were in the nature of con 

 structive, indirect, remote, and consequential injuries 

 or losses, and, therefore, not recoverable in law, either! 

 by the rules of the common law of England or of the 

 civil law as practiced on the Continent. Nothing 

 could more clearly show the inapplicability and 

 equivocation of the phrase &quot;indirect&quot; claims or losses 

 to designate any of the contents of the Treaty of 

 Washington. 



Manifestly, while private losses are supposable 

 which may be direct to individual citizens, national 

 losses are supposable which may be direct to the na 

 tion. On the other hand, private losses are supposa 

 ble as well as national, which any jurist or any court 

 would pronounce to be indirect, remote, or consequen 

 tial in their nature. 



All the discussion on this question asserts or ad 

 mits impliedly that the capture of a private mer 

 chant s vessel by a Confederate cruiser inflicted direct 

 loss or damage on the citizen-proprietor. Was not 

 the loss or damage occasioned by the capture of a 

 , Government vessel equally a case of direct loss to 

 the Government ? Most assuredly. 



Pursue the inquiry one step further. If, in a war 

 carried on by land between two States, one of them 

 invades the other and devastates the territory there 

 of, is not that a case of direct injury to the invaded 

 State ? If the hostilities in question be purely mari- 



