THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 



Now, the practical question which arises is wheth 

 er the schedules of claims, which were presented to 

 the Tribunal as documentary proofs on the part of 

 the United States, are conclusive, either as to what 

 they contain or what they do not contain, to establish 

 rules of distribution under the Award. 



This point is settled by what occurred in discus 

 sions before the Tribunal. 



Great Britain had presented a table, composed in 

 large part of estimates, appreciations, and arbitrary 

 or suppositions averages: in consequence of which 

 the United States presented other tables, to which 

 the British Agent objected that these tables compre 

 hended claimants, and subjects of claim, not comprised 

 in the actual schedules filed by the United States : to 

 which the American Agent replied by showing that 

 the Tribunal had before it, in virtue of the Treaty, 

 all the reclamations made by the United States in 

 the interest of individuals injured, and comprised un 

 der the generic name of Alabama Claims [le tribunal 

 reste saisi de la question de toutes les reclamations 

 faftes par les Etats-Unis dans 1 interet des individus 

 leses, et comprises sous le noin generique de reclama 

 tions de V Alabama]. 



Some discussions on the same subject afterward oc 

 curred between Mr. Stsempfli and Sir Alexander Cock- 

 burn, which conclusively prove that the result reached 

 did not accept as binding either the tables presented 

 by the United States or the deductions therefrom 

 claimed by Great Britain. The estimate of Mr. 

 Stsempfli seems to have been the basis of conclusion ; 



