The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1872-02-17 00:00:00

tTc3touqribge Ow*.

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1872.

TIM
ANGLO-AMERICAN DIFFICULTY.

Treaties are presumably the documents by
means of which international disputes are settled
and international agreements made ; but though
treaties in innumerable cases have been the
termination of wars, they have not seldom been
the causes of war. But whether cause or con-
sequence, the importance of treaties can hardly
be over-rated, and ity.is of the utmost moment
therefore that they lakould be clearly and defin-
itely worded, with as much simplicity and as
little verbiage.as possible. In this respect the
unfortunate Washington Treaty seems to be at
fault. There is also another momentous consi-
deration which the Anglo-American dispute just
now forces on the attention of the people of
Great Britain and of America, and that is that
the representatives of a people should have a
voice in the making and signing of treaties. We
do not mean that a committee of the whole
House of Commons, or of the American House
of Representatives, or any other representative
Chamber, should set to work to draw up a treaty ;
but we think it is high time that the people,
through their representatives, should have a
voice in agreeing to or refusing to accede to a
treaty, whereas the people now know nothing
about treaties till they are signed.
The pending dispute between Great Britain
and America is certainly a serious one, whatever
may be the upshot of it, and the attempts to
settle it have been characterised by blunders and
discrepancies on both sides. It appears that
long since the American Commissioners stated
to the British Commissioners that America had
suffered heavily front indirect losses, arising out
of the depredations of the Alabama, &c., but
that the former Commissioners added,—" In
the hope of an amicable settlement no estimate
is made of the indirect losses, without prejudice,
however, to the right of indemnification on their
part in the event of no such settlement being
made." This is vague, and in fact is susceptible
of two interpretations at least, though we have
no intention to indulge in the pastime of hair
splittng. During subsequent stages of negoti-
ation similar uncertainty and vagueness charac-
terised the deliberations of the negotiators, and
now England and America are quarrelling as to
what their representatives meant, what they said,
and what they did. Our Government maintain
that the question of indirect losses was beyond
the scope of the arbitrators, and that the Wash-
ington Treaty made no provision for them.
Lord Granville says the Geneva tribunal had
and has nothing to do with indirect losses and
claims; the President of the United States and
a strong party in America say that Great Bri-
tain is justly bound to pay claims for indirect
losses —claims which, we hasten to add, are

monstrous and preposterous.
At one time the dispute between England and
America threatened the gravest consequences,
and even now all danger has not passed away.
But there are indications that public opinion in
the States leans to the side of compromise. A
telegram from New York says that "even if
England should recede from the treaty, it is not
I apprehended that any results more serious than
those which existed before the negotiation of '
the treaty will follow." But England, it should
be understood, does not desire to recede from
the treaty; she wishes it to be carried out as
she understands it, the interpretation being the
miserable bone of contention. We do not, we
cannot believe that two great nations will go to
war over a verbal dispute, but rather that, great
as may be the pecuniary stake, America will
waive her monstrous claim, or that Great Bri-
lain will propose tou amicable compromise. The
heat of controversy is already cooling down ; the
excitement arising from the probability of a de-
claration of hostilities is passing away; and
a diner cmincils on either side are beginning to
prevail.