164 THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 
that the signature is but authentication, and the body 
of the Decision sets forth all the differences of opinion 
existing among the Arbitrators. Thus, Mr. Adams 
and Mr, Steempfli were overruled on two questions; 
and yet they signed the Act. So the Vicomte d’Ita- 
Juba was overruled on the great question of the lia- 
bility of Great Britain for the Shenandoah; and yet 
he signed the Act. In separating himself from his 
colleagues in this respect, the British Arbitrator ex- 
hibited himself as what he was, as most of his ac. 
tions in the Tribunal demonstrated,—as his subse- 
quent avowal established,—not so much a Judge, or 
an Arbitrator, as the volunteer and officious attor- 
ney of the British Government. 
_EFFECT OF THE AWARD. 
In reflecting on this Award, and seeking to deter- 
mine its true construction, let us see, in the first place, 
what it actually expresses either by inclusion or ex- 
clusion. . 
The Award is to the United States, in conformity 
with the letter of the Treaty, which has for its well- 
defined object to remove and adjust complaints and 
claims “on the part of the United States.” 
But the history of the Treaty and of the Arbitra- 
tion shows that the United States recover, not for the 
benefit of the American Government as such, but of 
such individual citizens of the United States as shall 
appear to have suffered loss by the acts or neglects 
of the British Government. It is, however, not a spe- 
cial trust legally affected to any particular claim or 
