§ QUESTION.
§ MR. PERCY WYNDHAMasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If the Indirect Claims do not still form a part of the American Case to be presented at Geneva; and, if so, if he would inform the House how the assurance of the President,
That he will make no claim on the part of the United States in respect of indirect losses as aforesaid before the Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva,can bar the Arbitrators from recognizing the Indirect Claims as part of the Case presented to them, and from even possibly adjudicating upon such Claims?
MR. GLADSTONEI think, Sir, that I can give an answer to the hon. Gentleman's Question which will be most satisfactory if I refrain from following the argument which his Question contains. If, however, he is not satisfied with the answer which I shall give I will, on his signifying the fact to me, take care to take up the line of argument. I think, however, my answer will do away with the necessity for any such course. The purport of the Question of the hon. Gentleman is quite obvious, and forms the subject of an inquiry very proper to be addressed to Her Majesty's Government. His meaning evidently is that the words he has quoted as the assurance of the President, namely—
That he will make no claim on the part of the United States in respect of indirect losses as aforesaid before the Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva,—are insufficient to procure the practical abrogation and extinction of the Indirect Claims. I do not use the word "withdrawal," because, as I have before ventured to observe, it appears to me that if we go upon the question of mere verbal criticism the word "withdrawal" is quite as open to such criticism as any other word that could be applied to the Indirect Claims included in the Case submitted by the American Government. I am not aware of any power provided under the Treaty by which that Case, or any part of it can, in technical accuracy, be withdrawn; but I think I perfectly understand the meaning of the hon. Member. I understand 1277 him to conceive that the words embodied in the Supplemental Article do not secure the final extinction for all practical purposes of the Indirect Claims, or that there shall be no proceeding taken or any award given upon them. Since I spoke on a recent day I have received the highest authority for giving this assurance—an assurance, be it observed, which is entirely contingent upon the conclusion of the Supplemental Treaty, because the American Government do not recede from their contention with respect to the meaning of the original Article—that the United States Government regards the new rule contained in the proposed Article, if it shall be agreed upon, as the consideration to be accepted as a final settlement of the three classes of the Indirect Claims which were put forth in the United States Case, and to which Her Majesty's Government have objected.