36 THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 
“Nor does it fall within the scope of this dispatch to discuss 
the important changes in the rules of public law, the desirable. 
ness of which has been demonstrated by the incidents of the 
last few years, now under consideration, and which, in view of 
the maritime prominence of Great Britain and the United 
States, it would befit them to mature and propose to the other 
States of Christendom. 
“All these are subjects of future consideration, which, when 
the time for action shall arrive, the President will consider 
with sincere and earnest desire that all differences between 
the two nations may be adjusted amicably and compatibly 
with the honor of each, and to the promotion of future concord 
between them; to which end he will spare no effort within the 
‘range of his supreme duty to the right and interests of the 
United States.” 
The British Government was in this way distinctly 
notified that, in addition to the question of indemni- 
ties to individual citizens for the destruction of their 
property, the United States were entitled to repara- 
tion “for the larger account of the vast national in- 
juries” inflicted on them as a Government. 
That the British Government so understood the 
matter is proved by the tenor of the elaborate respon- 
sive paper, styled “ Observations,” appended to Lord 
Clarendon’s dispatch to Sir Edward Thornton of the 
ensuing November; and our national claims are spe- 
cifically commented on in those “ Observations.” 
It is immaterial how these national losses came 
afterward to be designated by the title of construct: 
ive or indirect; yet such is the fact. 
Now, it is perfectly clear that national claims are 
not claims for indirect or constructive loss, any more 
than individual claims are. In fact, throughout the 
