Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, transmitted to Congress with the annual message of the President, December 2, 1872, Part II, Volume IV

[Untitled]

Extract from the Pall Mall Gazette, February 2, 1872.

“Now if we look at all this fairly, and in due order, we shall see that it establishes the following points:”

1. That the American commissioners did formally set forth a demand for indirect damages, and that they preferred it in the very language of the case subsequently drawn up for the court of arbitration.

2. That at the same time and in the same breath they offered to present no estimate of damage for indirect loss, in hope that an amicable settlement would be made for certain direct losses: this amicable settlement being explained (or explainable) as meaning the concession of an expression of regret, and that the joint commission should proceed to agree upon a lump sum to bo paid in satisfaction of all the claims (meaning direct claims) with interest. Further that in this suggestion the withdrawal of claims for indirect loss was stated to be “without prejudice” to their revival.

3. That the British commissioners made no protest against the demand on account of indirect loss, nor in any way attempted to separate that class of claims from the other class, nor in any way manifested hostility to the presentation of those claims; but refusing to admit responsibility on account of all the claims without distinction, they offered, for the sake of maintaining frieudly relations with the United States, to adopt the principle of arbitration in disposing of the claims.

4. That the American Commissioners then “expressed their regret at this decision;” thereby showing or seeming to show that in their minds a distinct proposal had been considered and rejected. Having thus expressed regret, they consented to submit the question of our “liability” to arbitration, on condition that certain rules were drawn up and agreed to for the guidance of the arbitrators. That after dlmur and reference to the British government this condition was accepted. That accordingly rules were drawn up by the American commissioners, (apparently,) and that after some points had been referred by the British commissioners to their government, these rules were agreed to as binding on the court of arbitration.

Next, (though that does not appear in that we have quoted above,) the joint high commissioners “proceeded to consider the form of submission,” and the formation of a tribunal.

“Subsequently, the apology, or expression of regret, was asked for and conceded. And then at various sittings those articles of the treaty were agreed to which refer to the settlement by arbitration of “all the said claims growing out of acts committed by the aforesaid (i. e., several) vessels, and generically known as the Alabama claims.”

It is of the utmost importance that in dealing with so critical a matter as this we allow no prejudice nor any sense of wrong to operate in our minds unfairly; and that we make no attempt to misread facts and statements upon which the other side can even plausibly rely. Therefore it is that we print this recital. It should be added, perhaps, that the statement above quoted was drawn up conjointly, and is signed by both parties.”