ALABAMA CLAIMS. val 
ered for the present to be confidential,—that is, sub- 
ject, to the discretion of either of the two Govern. 
ments. 
But what is the “question of public law involved 2” 
Is it the question of claim for indirect or consequen- 
tial damages, as argued by the British Government? 
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 ensem- 
ble 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: 
