The Sun.
London, England, 1869-02-20 00:00:00

INDIAN TELEGRAMS.

-------
We mentioned two days ago that Messrs. Schuster
and Co. had sent a telegram to Calcutta, and re-
ceived a reply withrn seven hours. We remarked
that this unwonted despatch seemed to show that the
managers of the present telegraph to India had been
stirred into activity by the Prospect of competition.
This activity would seem to be spasmodic. Another
firm write that they received a telegram on the 17th
at 10.55 a.m., dated Calcutta 11th, 4.30 p.m.
How conies it to pass, they ask, that while one firm
was so fortunate as to get telegram and reply trans-
mitted in a little over ti
hours, their own firm had to
wait nearly 0 days for the reply alone ? This uncer-
tainty is almost worse than regular delay. Is it
possible that spe:lal preparations were made for
dealing with Messrs. Schuster's message by way of
advertisement for a company which has been much
and not undeservedly abused lately ?

FOREIGN NOTES.

REJECTION OF THE ALABAIIA CLAIMS TREATY.

The Foreign Affairs Committee of the American Senate
almost unanimously recommend the rejection of the treaty
signed by Lord Clarendon and 31r. Reverdy Johnson for
the settlement of the Alabama claims. This intelligence
only confirms general expectation, and it may be taken
as a sure piesage of the fate of the treaty. There is no
ground for the hope that the Senate will disregard the
recommendation of its committee. It appears that the
concessions made by England still fall short of American
demands. The people of the United States object to the
Convention partly on account of the length of time which
a settlement in its terms would involve. A year is allowed
for ratifications to be exchanged between the two Govern-
ments, two years were the maximum period for the delibe-
rations of the commissioners, and beyond this time eighteen
months might possibly be consumed in tale payment of the
claims. This delay was thought too great. Then objec-
tions were raised to the mode of choosing the umpire,
which, the Americans urged, placed justice at the mercy
of chance. An umpire unfavourable to American views
might be chosen by the tossing up of a cent. This is true,
thcugh it is by no means clear what other provi-
sion could be made for a contingency with which
international law cannot deal. If the parties
cannot agree upon a referee, how is the difficulty to be
overcome? Further objection is taken on the ground
that British claims are placed upon the same footing as
American claims. According to a petition which a Boston
shipowner presented to the Senate, the injury caused by
the derredations of the Alabama was inflicted by
the British Government wilfully, and in bad
faith. This is simply begging much, if not the
whole, of the question at issue. The Times
considers that the real defect of the Treaty is, as we have
previously shown, the absence of any definite basis of
arbitration, and the great probability that the recognition of
the South as a belligerent might be brought into court
through sheer want of provision to exclude it ; a defect
so serious as to reconcile the Times to the rejection. "We
have done our best, we have gone to the verge, if not
transgressed it, of national humiliation," and all that
remains is to await the proposals of the United States
Government. Clearly the next initiative must come from
the other side.