166 THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. * 



Now, the practical question which arises is wheth- 

 er the schedules of claims, which were presented to 

 the Tribunal as documentary proofs on the part of 

 the United States, are conclusive, either as to what 

 they contain or what they do not contain, to establish 

 rules of distribution under the Award. 



This point is settled by what occurred in discus- 

 sions before the Tribunal. 



Great Britain had presented a table, composed in 

 large part of estimates, appreciations, and arbitrary 

 or suppositious averages: in consequence of which 

 the United States presented other tables, to which 

 the British Agent objected that these tables compre- 

 hended claimants, and subjects of claim, not comprised 

 in the actual schedules filed by the United States : to 

 which the AmeHcan Agent replied by showing that 

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

 all the reclamations made by the United States in 

 the interest of individuals injured, and comprised un- 

 der the generic name oiAlahama Claims [le tribunal 

 reste saisi de la question de toutes les reclamations 

 faites par les Etats-Unis dans Pinteret des individus 

 leses, et comprises sous le nom generique de reclama- 

 tions de VAlahama]. 



Some discussions on the same subject afterward oc- 

 curred between Mr. Stiempfli and Sir Alexander Cock- 

 burn, -which conclusively prove that the result reached 

 did not accept as binding either the tables presented 

 by the United States or the deductions therefrom 

 claimed by Great Britain. The estimate of Mr. 

 Stoempiii seems to have been the basis of conclusion ; 



