3S 'IHi: TKKATY OF WAMIINGTOX. 



time, as in tlie oxanij)le of the iini)ei1ect or (luasi war 

 In'twi't'ii tlie United States and France in the closinix 

 years of the hist century, can it be denied that the 

 injui'ies done to either nation by suoli liostib'ties on 

 the sea involve direct national as well as private 

 injuries? 



On lirst impression, therefore, it niii^ht seem that 

 the Ihitish Government and British o])inion ran wild 

 in the chase of shadows, aiul combated a creature of 

 mere imagination in quarreling with this part of the 

 American Case at all, and, still more, in contending 

 that on this account Great Britain could be justified 

 in revoking the arbitration agreed uj->on, — that is, in 

 elfect, violating the Treaty. 



The Treaty referred to the Tril)uiial of Arbitration, 

 in terms unequivocal, f/^^ claims of the Uuitcd States 

 [jvow'uKj Old of the acts committed Z-// certain vessels, 

 and' (fcnericaUij known as ^''Alabama Claimsy It 

 might neeU to go outside of the Treaty into antece- 

 dent or contemporaneous diplomatic correspondence 

 in Older to ascertain the meaning of the j>hrasc ^^Ala- 

 /n(ma Claims;" but, in so doing, it would incontro- 

 vertibly ajijieai", at every stage of such correspond- 

 ence, that natio)i(d as Avell as individual claims were 

 conq>rehended, and were all confounded together, and, 

 indeed, without mention of individual claims, in the 

 designation of "claims on the part of the United 

 States." 



Whether any of the claims sO preferred on tlie part 

 of the United States were for losses indirect or conse- 

 quential would be au ordinary question ofjurispru- 



