The Davenport daily gazette. [volume] (Davenport, Iowa) 1856-1869, 1856-01-22
T. ADrrRAuoN.


The whole body OF the American press
evinces an uncommon degree OF unanimiiy
in regard to the construction OF the Clayton
Buf~er treaty, and that's ,hatthe American
censtsaction of il is the correct one. 1t is
not contended that we are right in every
particllar which We claim, but, il We may
so term il, the balance Of right is decidedly
in our favor, and the whole question as it
stands a, present is one which SO nsturaliy
and forcibly suggests the idea OF arbitration,
that il would be monstrous for two govern
ments Ike those of tae United States and
Great Britain to think OF involving the peo-
pie OF the two countries in war on account
Of the misunderstanding concerning the
Central American question.
In relation TO the psoprie'y of arbitration
in this matter. We copy the subjoined re-
marks from the National Iaielliyencer;-
'And this brings US to another opinion,
which we venture to express on the subject.
The construction contended for by each
Government is, in our humble judgment,
right IN part and IN part wrong on both
sides. An examination ui the treaty, and
ofthe elaborate and able debate on the sab
Jsct three years ago in the Senate, leaves
no doubt on our minds that the claim OF
England to the occuPanty OF BaIize and the
Bay Islands is good, and that her claim for
the continued pfotectorate OF Mosqutia or
occupancy of any portion OF the Central
American coast is as clearly unsustained
BY the treaty. On the other hand. the con-
struction contradiction by our Government
is correlatively untenable in the frs, point
and clearly right in the second. But. un-
happily, the two Governments are equally
positive and unfolding in their respective
interpretations, This being the case, hat
IL the path Of duty, patriotism and human.
ity! What would be the course OF two sen-
sibie and peaceabie men who differed in
matter OF private right and who wisely de.
sired to avoid the ultima ratio of pryate con-
troversy-an appeal to the la.sP Would il
not be TO refer the dispute to some disinter-
ested umPirei In like manner. II neither
Government desires solution OF this Cen.
tral American difficulty by resort TO the
a<finaa ratio reyun, WAR, which il would be
an Insult 10 either to imagine, would il not
De the course of wisdom TO refer the oues-
ernment' The Emperor Of Russia was
once our arbitrator 10 an ancient dispute with
England; the King OF Prussia was chosen
our umpire in the adjudication of our rccla-
nations against Mexico; and the Emperor
OF the French more recently performed the
same friendly office for W in claim for
damages against Portugal. Here are prec-
easn.s enough and where could the present
Central American controversy he referred
with more confidence in an imnsrtfal de-
cis'on than 10 the disinterested King Of Bel
gum, or the enlightened and yirtuous SOW
ereign OF Sweden, II, however, kings are
onensive TO our democratic taste. we would
eonndently refer the matter to the So ge . nd
EARNED -, humooidt or the enlightened G III
cot Whatever the decision should be.
either party could abide il without the bu.
imitation Of acknowledged error of opinion.
o. being driven to the voluntary surrender
Of an alleged right