« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
formity with the proper “interpretation of the treaty," and especially as (possibly) ruled by the words “ growing out of,” more which everybody admits to be novel, and inconsistent with the usual “principles of international law.”
There was, moreover, a special reason, as in equity between the parties, upon which the United States might have dissented from this extra-judicial interference of the Arbitrators, if they had thought it proper or desirable. There was, and still is, in existence a "supplemental article," agreed upon in principle between the two Governments, which provides for the withdrawal of the indirect claims by the latter, upon certain conditions as to future policy with regard to neutrals; and the acceptance of the course suggested by the Arbitrators, would necessarily go to abandoning the claims, without the stipulated equivalent. But no objection on this ground was raised by the United States.
Great stress is laid upon the seemingly guarded language in which President Grant acknowledged and accepted the statement of the Arbitrators, namely, that the declaration made by the Tribunal “is accepted by the President of the United States as determinative of their judgment upon the important question of public law involved,”—without any declaration of acquiescence in that judgment; which is followed by the announcement tha consequently, the above-mentioned claims will not be insisted upon before the Tribunal by the United States, and may be excluded from all consideration in any award that may be made,”-no absolute withdrawal of the claims being made, such as to prevent their being revived on a future occasion in another form.
But those who write in this sense overlook that all these proceedings are governed by the terms of the Treaty, and that the Treaty distinctly refers to the Arbitrators “ all the said claims growing out of the acts committed by the aforesaid vessels,” and stipulates that “the high contracting parties engage to consider the result of the proceedings of the Tribunal of Arbitration as a full, perfect, and final settlement of all the claims hereinbefore referred to; and further engage that every such claim, whether the same may or may not have
been presented to the notice of, made, preferred, or laid before the Tribunal, shall from and after the conclusion of the proceedings of the Tribunal be considered and treated as finally settled, barred, and thenceforth inadmissible.”
Mr. Bancroft, on behalf of his Government, on the 27th June, permitted Lord Tenterden “to file the Argument of Her Britannic Majesty's Government,” thereby waiving any objections on the score of default; and the “ Argument” was then accordingly put in and filed, and the parties were thereupon again completely and formally before the Tribunal; all which facts are duly recorded in the protocol of the day's proceedings.
Finally, we have a right to expect that the award of the Tribunal, whenever it is made, will be consistent with what has been declared by them, and assented to by the United States, to the effect of excluding and disallowing the indirect claims; and that award, as we maintain, will be final, complete, and beyond all possibility of disturbance.
PRINTED BY TAYLOR AND CO.,