ALABAMA CLAIMS. 71 



ered for tlie present to be confidential, — that is, sub- 

 ject to tlie discretion of either of the two Govern- 

 ments. 



But what is the " question of public law involved ?" 

 Is it the question of claim for indirect or consequen- 

 tial damages, as argued by the British Government 1 

 By no means. 



Observe, no suggestion of any distinction between 

 direct and indirect claims is to be found in the decla- 

 ration of the Arbitrators. And their declaration can 

 not be explained by reference to any such order of 

 ideas. 



The significant words are: "These claims do not 

 constitute, upon the principles of international law 

 applicable to such cases, good foundation for an award 

 of compensation or computation of damages between 

 nations." 



Why do they not? Because they are indirect? 

 Because they are consequential? No such objection 

 is intimated. 



But although, in making this declaration, a mere 

 conclusion of mind, the Arbitrators abstained at the 

 time from assigning any reasons for such conclusion, 

 yet they supplied this omission subsequently, as we 

 shall plainly see when we come to review the e?isem- 

 hie of all the, acts of the Tribunal. We shall then be 

 able to appreciate the importance and value of this 

 declaration to the United States. 



The Counsel of the United States advised the ac- 

 ceptance of this declaration by the Government, as 

 follows: . . • 



