ALABAMA CLAIMS. 165 
claimants, but a general fund to be administered by 
the United States in good faith, in conformity with 
their own conceptions of justice and equity, within 
the range of the Award. If, according to any theory 
of distribution adopted by the United States, the 
sum awarded prove inadequate, we have no claim on 
Great Britain to supply the deficiency : on the other 
hand, if the Award should prove to be in excess, we 
are not accountable to Great Britain for any balance. 
On this point, precedents exist in the diplomatic his. 
tory of Great Britain herself. 
The Tribunal does not afford us any rules of limit- 
ation affecting the distribution of the Award, un- 
less in the declaration that “prospective earnings,” 
“double claims” for the same losses, and “claims for 
gross freights, so far as they exceed net freights,” can 
not properly be made the subject of compensation,— 
that is to say, as against Great Britain. 
Nor does the Tribunal define affirmatively what 
claims should be satisfied otherwise than in the com- 
prehensive terms of the Award, which declares that 
the sum awarded is “the indemnity to be paid by 
Great Britain to the United States for the satisfac. 
tion of all the claims referred to the consideration of 
the Tribunal, conformably to the provisions contained 
in Article VII. of the aforesaid Treaty.” 
The Arbitrators,—be it observed,—do not say for 
the satisfaction of certain specific claims among those 
referred to the consideration of the Tribunal, but of 
“qil-the claims” so referred conformably to the pro- 
visions of the Treaty. 
