ALABAMA CLAIMS. 07 



legal (ViMcussions liefure tlio Tribunal, the lirltifsli Gov- 

 enuncnt steadily luaiiitaincd that all th(^ claims of in- 

 dividual citizens lor the destruction of their vessels 

 Ly Confederate cruisers ^verc in the natun; of con- 

 structive, indirect, remote, and consc(|uential injuries 

 or losses, and, therefore, not recoverable in la^v, either 

 by the rnlea of the conunon law of England or of the 

 civil law as practiced on the Continent. Nothing- 

 could iore clearly show the inai)plieability and 

 equivc .ation of the })hrase "indirect" claims or losses 

 to designate any of the contents of the Treaty of 

 AVashimiton. 



jManifestly, while private losses are supposable 

 which may be direct to individual citizens, national 

 losses arc supposable which may be direct to the na- 

 tion. On the other hand, ])rivate losses are supposa- 

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

 would pronounce to be indirect, remote, or conserpun- 

 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 

 Cfovernment vessel equally a case of direct loss to 

 i\\Q 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- 



