154 'iHJ' TliKATV OF WASHINGTON. 



jiulgincnt of lliu Triljiinal, pro^K'rly tlistlnguiblialjle 

 I'ruiu till' general expenses of tlie war carried on "by 

 tlie United States." 



lleiv, tlie ihajor premise is assumed as already do- 

 termineil or admitted, namely, that "the general ex- 

 penses of tlic war" are not to be made the subject of 

 award. AVhy not':! Because such expenses are in 

 tlie nature of ///'//Va'^ losses? Xo such notion is in- 

 timated. Because the claim, as Leing for indtrcd 

 losses, is not within the purview of the Treaty ? That 

 is not said or implied. Jk'cause such a claim is be- 

 yond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal? No: for the 

 Tribunal takes jiu'isdiction and judges in fact. The 

 (juestion then remains,— why is a claim for losses 

 l)ertaining to the general expenses of the war to be 

 rejected ? 



Tliere can be no mistake as to the true answer. It 

 is to b'j found in the preliminaiy oj/mion cx]»ressed 

 by the Arbitrators. 



The Tribunal, in that oi)inion, says that the contro- 

 verted [the so-called indirect] claims "do not consti- 

 tute, upon the principles of international law a])plica- 

 ble to such cases, good foundati(»n for an award of 

 com])ensation or computation of damages between na- 

 tions." AVhy does not the injury done to a nation by 

 the destruction of its commerce, and by the augmenta- 

 tion of the duration and expenses of war, constitute " a 

 good foundation for an award of compensation or com- 

 putation of damages between nations V The answer 

 is tliat such subjects of reclamation arc " not properly 

 distinguishable tVom the general expenses of war." 



