15S 



Tin: TllEATY OF \YASIIINGTON. 



"principle lliat, wlicrc an injury has been done by one nation 

 "to another, a claim for some appropriate redress arises, and 

 "that it is on all accounts desirable that this right should be 

 "satisfied by amicable reparation instead of being enforced by 

 " war. All civil society reposes on this principle, or on a prin- 

 "ciple analogous to this ; the society of nations, as well as that 

 "which unites the individual members of each particular com- 

 •' monwealth." 



Now the capture of private property on the seas, 

 it can not be denied, is one of the methods of public 

 war. AVhether such capture be made by letters of 

 manpi", or by regular men-of-war, is innnaterial ; in 

 eithev fonn it increases the resources of one Belliger- 

 ent and it weakens those of the other; and if the 

 Neutral fits cut |or in violation of neutral duty, suf- 

 iers to be lilted out in its ports, which is the same 

 thing] cruisers in aid of one of the Belligerents, such 

 Neutral becomes a virtual participant in the war, not 

 only prolonging it and augmenting its expenses, but 

 perhaps ])roducing decisive eflects adverse to the 

 other Belligerent. Tiiese are the national losses, or, 

 as the British Government insists, the indirect losses, 

 intlicted by neglect or omission to discharge the ob- 

 ligations of neutrality. 



In deciding that such losses, — that, in general, 

 the national charges of war, — can not by the law of 

 nations be regarded as "good foundation for an 

 award of compensation or computation of damages 

 between nations," the Tribunal in eftect relegated 

 that question to the unexplored field of the discre- 

 tion of sovereign States. 



Claims of indemnity for the national losses grow- 



