154 THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 
judgment of the Tribunal, properly distinguishable 
from the general expenses of the 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. Why not? Because such expenses are in 
the nature of indirect losses?. No such notion is in- 
timated. Because the claim, as being for zndirect 
losses, is not within the purview of the Treaty? That 
is not said or implied. 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 preliminary opinion ae essed. 
by the Arbitrators. 
The Tribunal, in that opinion, says that fie 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 award 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 awar d 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.” 
