1(50 THE TUEATY OF WASHINGTON. 



Now, tlic practical question wliicli arises is wlietli- 

 or the sclicduk's of claims, Avhicli were presented to 

 tlic Tribunal as docnnientary pj'oots on the part of 

 tl»c United States, arc conclusive, either as to what 

 they contain or wliat they do not contain, to establish 

 ruK's of distribution under the Award. 



Tliis point is settled by what occurred in discus- 

 sions before the Tribunal. 



Great Britain had presented a table, composed in 

 large part of estimates, ap])reciations, and arbitrary 

 or suppositious averages: in consequence of M-ldch 

 the United States presented other tables, to w!iich 

 the British Agent objected that these tables compre- 

 liended claimants, and subjects of claim, not compiised 

 in tlie actual schedules filed by the United States: to 

 winch tlic American Agent replied by showing that 

 the Tribunal had before it, in virtue of tlie Treaty, 

 all the reclamations made by the United States in 

 the interest of individuals injured, and comprised un- 

 der the generic name oi AJdlxnna Claims [le triljunal 

 reste saisi do la ([ucstion de tontes les reclamations 

 faites par les Etats-Unis dans Tinteret des individus 

 loses, et comprises sous le nom generique dc reclama- 

 tions dc VAhtlxnua]. 



Some discussions on the same subject afterward oc- 

 curred between ]\lr.Sta'mpHi and Sir Alexander Cock- 

 burn, which conclusively prove that the result reached 

 did not accept as binding either the tables pi'csented 

 by the United States or the deductions therefrom 

 claimed by Great Britain. The estimate of j\Ir. 

 StiempHi seems to have been the basis of conclusion ; 



