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

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 tn ats thatthe American
censtruction OF il is the correc, one. 1t is
not commended that we are right in every
particular which We claim, but, If We may
so term il, the balance OF right is decidedly
in our favor, aud the whole question Us it
stands at present is one which So naturally
and forcibly suggests the idea Of arbitration
that it would be monstrous for TWO govern
ments Ike those OF the United States and
Great Britain to think OF involving the peo-
pie OF the two countries in war on account
Of the misunderstandings concerning the
Central American question.
In relation 10 the proprieiy of arbitration
in this matter, We copy The subjoined re-
marks from the National I,siellisenoer:--
"And this brings US to smother opinion.
which we venture to express on the subject
The construction eontended for by each
Government is, in cur humble Judgment.
right in part and in part wrong on both
sides. An examination vi the treaty. and
ofthe elaborate and able debate or the ssh-
jsct three years ago in the Senate, leaves
no doubt on our minds ths, the claim OF
England to the occupanty OF Balize and the
Bay Islands is good, and that her claim for
the continued protectorste Of Mosoui,ia or
occupancy of any portion OF the Central
American coast is as Clearly unsustained
by the treaty, On the other hand. the con-
structon contended for by our Government,
is correlatively untenable in the frs, poin,
and clearly right in the second. But, IN.
happily, the two Governments are equally
positive and unyieldiRg in their respective
interpretations, This being the case, hat
II the path of duty, patriotism and human.
ity! what would be the course Of two sen-
sioie and peaceabie men who differed in .
mafief oil private right and who wisely de.
sired to avoid the ultima ratio of private con.
troversy--an appeal to The lais9 Would i,
not be to refer the dispute to some disinter.
ested umpire? In like manner, If nei,he,
Government desires solution OF this Cen
uai American difficulty BY a resort to tn.
1aama reiio Tegu,a, WAR, which il would bc
an insult TO either TO imagine, would II moi
DC the course of wisdom TO refer the cues.
toh 10 the decision Of some impartial Gov.
efnment! The Emperor OF Russia was
once our arbliratorin an ancient dispute with
England; the King Of Prussia was chosen
our umpire in the adjudication of our rccla.
manons against Mexico; and the Emperor
OF the French more recently performed the
same friendly office for IN in a claim 70,
damages against Portugal. Here are prec.
eaen's enough. and where could the presen,
~. nshifai american controversy be referred
cision than TO the disinteres,ed King OF Bel
gum or the enlightened and yir,uous soy
ereign OF Sweden, If, however, kings ar,
offensive TO our democratic taste. we wonl,
confidently refer the matter to the sspe On,
learned Humboldt or the enlightened Gui
Los Whatever The decision should be
eitner party could abide it without the hu
limitation Of acknowledged error Of ooinion
OF being driven to The voluntary surrende,
Of an alleged right