C-i THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 



"Such iinlircct claims as tliose for national losses stated in 

 the Case jucsented on the i)ait ol'tlic Government of tlie United 

 States . . . should not be admitted in princij)le as growing out 

 of the acts committed by particular vessels, alleged to have 

 been enabled to commit dejjredations on the shij)ping of a bel- 

 ligerent by reason of such want of due diligence in the per- 

 formance of neutral obligations as that whiclj is imputed by the 

 United Slates to <ireat Jiritain :" 



wliich ])roposcd agivcment the prcamLle proceeds to 

 state, in the foiin of two separate declarations, — one 

 l)y Great Britain and one by the United States, — 

 each of them intelligible only by reference co pre- 

 vions i)art8 of the preamble : the whole to the cou- 

 clnsion t^.at the Piesident shall make no claim, on 

 the part of the United States, in respect of the indi- 

 rect clamis as aforesaid, before tlie Tribunal of Arbi- 

 tration at Geneva. 



Tiie Senate, thinking that the recitals in the pre- 

 amble were not sulliciently exj)licit to furnish to the 

 United States satisfactory basis of transaction, pro- 

 loosed the following i.;ubstitute : 



"Whereas both Ctoveriimeuts adopt for the future the prin- 

 ciple that claims for remote or indirect losses should not bo 

 admitted as the result of failure to observe neutral obligations, 

 so far as to declare that it Mill hereafter guide the conduct of 

 both (loverjiments in their relations with cacli other. Now, 

 tlicrcforc," etc. 



But the Senate's redaction of the article rendered 

 its meaning too clear to be agreeable to the British 

 Government, which, as was shrewdly said of it in 

 Paris at the cime, doubted whether release from claim 

 of reparation for the present wrong done by Great 



