166 THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 
Now, the practical question which arises is wheth- 
er the schedules of claims, which were presented to 
the Tribunal as documentary proofs on the part of 
the United States, are conclusive, either as to what 
they contain or what they do not contain, to establish 
rules of distribution under the Award. 
This point is settled by what occurred in discus- 
sions before the Tribunal. 
Great Britain had presented a table, composed in 
large part of estimates, appreciations, and arbitrary 
or suppositious averages: in consequence of which 
the United States presented other tables, to which 
the British Agent objected that these tables compre- 
hended claimants, and subjects of claim, not comprised 
in the actual schedules filed by the United States: to 
which the American Agent replied by showing that 
the Tribunal had before it, in virtue of the Treaty, 
all the reclamations made by the United States in 
the interest of individuals injured, and comprised un- 
der the generic name of Alabama Claims [le tribunal 
reste saisi de la question de toutes les réclamations 
faites par les Etats-Unis dans Vintérét des individus 
lésés, et comprises sous le nom générique de réclama- 
tions de 2’ Alabama]. 
Some discussions on the same subject afterward oc- 
curred between Mr.Stempfli and Sir Alexander Cock- 
burn, which conclusively prove that the result reached 
did not accept as binding either the tables presented 
by the United States or the deductions therefrom 
claimed by Great Britain. The estimate of Mr. 
Stempfli seems to have been the basis of conclusion ; 
