154 THE TEEATY OF WASHINGTON. 



judgment of tlie Tribunal, jiroperly distinguisliable 

 from the general ex2:)enses of tlie war carried on by 

 the United States." 



Here, the major premise is assumed as already de- 

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

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

 award. A¥hy not? Because such expenses are in 

 the nature of indirect losses ? No such notion is in- 

 timated. Because the claim, as being for indirect 

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

 is not said or imjjlied. Because such a claim is be- 

 yond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal? No: for the 

 Tribunal takes jurisdiction and judges in fact. The 

 question then remains, — why is a claim for losses 

 pertaining to the general expenses of the war to be 

 rejected? 



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

 is to be found in the preliminaiy opinion expressed 

 by the Arbitrators. 



The Tribunal, in that opinion, says that the contro- 

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

 tute, upon the principles of international law applica- 

 ble to such cases, good foundation for an a^vard of 

 compensation or computation of damages between na- 

 tions." Why 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 ?" The answer 

 is that such subjects of reclamation are " not properly 

 distinguishable from the general expenses of war." 



