ALABAMA CLAIMS. 105 



cLiIm.ints, but n, general fund to Lc atlministered l>y 

 the United States in good faitL, in conformity with 

 tlieir own concej)tion9 of justice and equity, within 

 tlie range of tin; Awai'd. If, according to any tlieory 

 of distribution ado])ted Ijy the United States, the 

 sum awarded j)rove inadequate, we have no chum on 

 (ireat Britain to suj)ply tlie deiiciency : on the other 

 hand, if tlie Award should prove to Ix! in excess, we 

 ai"e not accountable to Great Britain for any balance. 

 On this point, j)recedents exist in tlie dii)loinatic his- 

 tory of (treat Jiritain lierself 



The Tribunal does not aiford us any rules of limit- 

 ation affectlnix the distribution of the Award,- un- 

 less in tlie declaration that "prospective earnings,'' 

 "double claims" for the same losses, and "claims for 

 j^ross freinrhts, so far as they exceed net freiirhts," can 

 not properly be made the subject of compensation, — ■ 

 that is to say, as against Great Britain. 



Nor does the Tribunal define allirmatively what 

 claims should be satisfied otherwise than in the com- 

 ju'ehensivc terms of the Award, which declares that 

 the sum awarded is "the indemnity to be ])aid by 

 Great Britain to the United States for the satisfac- 

 tion of all the cliff HIS nfcrml to the coHHlderathm of 

 the 'rrlliiiiKtl^ conformably to the ])rovisionH. cont/iined 

 in Article Vlf. of the aforesaltl 'IVeaty." 



The Arbitrators, — be it observed, — do not say for 

 the mtif<facti<»i of certain (specific claiin.s ainowj tJio.se 

 referred to the consideration of the Tribunal, but of 

 " all the claims " so referred conformably to the pro- 

 visions of the Treaty. 



