so Tin: TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 



" Xor (loos it I'lil uilliiu the scope oflliis (lisji.'itcli to disci'.ss 

 tlic iinporl.'uil cliaiim's in tliti nilcs orimblic law, the dcMii'iiblo- 

 )iosH (»r wliic'ii lias hit'M (U-iiionstratod by tlio inciik'iitH of tlio 

 last Ilmv years, tiow \iii»lfr consideralion, and uliicli, in view of 

 the inaritinio proininenoc of (lioat Uritain iind the United 

 States, it avouUI befit tlieni to mature and propose to the otlicr 

 States of Cliristendoin. 



"All these are subjects of future consideiatioii, which, when 

 the time for action shall arrive, tlie President will consider 

 with sincere and earnest desire that all ditlerenccs between 

 the two nations )iiay l)e adjusted amicably and compatibly 

 with tlio honor of each, and to the promotion of future concord 

 between them; to which end ho will spare no elVort within the 

 range of his supreme duty to the right and interests of the 

 United States." 



The IJritisli Government was in this way distinctly 

 notified tliut, in addition to the question of indemni- 

 ties to individual citizens for tlic destruction of their 

 property, tlie United States were entitled to re])ara- 

 tion ''for the larger account of the vast national in- 

 juries'' inllieted on them as a Government. 



Tliat the British Government so luulerstood the 

 matter is proved by the tenor of the elaborate respon- 

 sive i)aper, styled " Observations," appended to Lord 

 Clarendon's dispatch to Sir Edward Tliornton of the 

 ensuing November; and our national claims are spe- 

 cifically conmu'uted on in those " Observations." 



It is immaterial how these national losses came 

 afterward to be designated by the title of construct- 

 ive or indirect ; yet such is the fact. 



Now, it is perfectly clear that national claims are 

 not claims for indirect or constructive loss, any more 

 than individual chiims are. In fact, througliout the 



