The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1868-03-13

across the water-will form a by-no-
means UnimpOrtant set of to the
claims preferred against Us by the
United States Hear, hear. But
think, if matters. were fairly adjusted
against the United States, we should
not be disposed to grudge the pay
ment. Loud and general cheering.
The expense would be quite worth in
curing, if only in order to Obtat8 an
authoritative decision as to the posi-
ton Of neutrals In future wars.
Hear, hear If the Alabama claim
ants are kept out of what may be due
TO them, they ought to understand
and | think they will understand
that it is not by the act of this Gov
ernment; and though party politics
may run high in the United States,
I will not believe that any party
can be so reckless or iusensible to the
interests of their own country as to
engage in q quarrel, probably engage
in a great and costly war, for the sake
of enforcing, In one particular way, a
claim which it was Ia their power to
settle, and probably settled in their
own sense without any recourse to VI
/ o!enee. To do 50 would be contrary,
D
/ the American people, but would be
/ in the French phrase, for which no
English equivalent exists, EnfOrcer
4 une Porte OtUerte-breaking open
1 door that is not locked. Hear, hear
and laughter.l l cannot but think
/ that in some indirectly, If not
directly, the United States Gov
ernment may be. induced to waive
this point If they decline
to do that, it remains TO be seen
( whether any other solution Of the
question in dispute can be found. Mr..
Seward has more than once thrown
out hints Of a general commission,
which should deal with all the out
standing questions of all descriptions,
between the two countries. L have,
verbally and through Mr.. Adams,
suggested that he should develop that
idea. Speaking as an isolated indi-
vidual, and without prejudice as to
what may be done IN the future, l
should have thought that internation-
al questions were better settled one
BY one; but l am not disposed TO re-
iect any reasonable mode of settle
ment, and if we can argue upon the
substance, | do not think either the
Government, the House, or the
country, would be disposed to stand
out on matters of form. [Cheers. ]
Mr.. Foster could not conceive any
thing more calculated to appease irrl.
tation between the two countries than
the concluding remarks of the noble
) Lord, and although he objected il
some slight degree to the course
g which the noble Lord had taken with
regard tOep pegotiations, he believed ht
3 had been most anxious to bring then
to a favorable conclusion, and thai
there was really less difference be
tween himself and the American
Government than the noble Lord
l perhaps. supposed Originally
when Mr. Seward offered to arbitrate
I the war was still proceeding, anC
it was for the interests of the Ameri
5 can Government that the question
t should be referred, but when, in 1867
/ the noble Lord made a similar Offe
: the war had ceased, and it was for ou
!, interest to terminate the controversy
: But the position of the American
; Government had changed. They fel
!; back from their position of advocate
: of belhgerent rights to their oil
1 stand point of great neutral power
:, and advocated accordingly the privi
: leges of neutrals. Hence the nObl
= Lord was now placed Ia the position
: of making an offer IN accordance wit
e our own interests, which the Britis
I Government had refused when mad
d by the Americans 10 accordance wit
e their interests. He did not for a me
o ment sympathize with the cOmplaiH
: of the American Government, /
d what they called our premature rec
o oguition of the belligerent rights {
2, the Confederates, but he did not thin
= the ground now taken by that Gov
ernmeuc was the one stated by th
noble Lord. He did not believe the
It expected anything so absurd as tha
l. A. to referring the question to arb
5 tration. while he thought we had th
,e cIeverest case on the points, he cOUl
Is not see why we should obie,
n 10 make that case before an arbitr;
IS ton. There might be an objection {
r. such q course, if arbitration W.
:. merely meant to be a mode of maxim
e. a confession when we knew we wei
K wrong. but he believed that the partit
As to the treaty of Paris intended tn;
J. arbitration should IN the future (
30 regarded as a means Of deciding di
r putes between nations by the int
e, vention of a third party witho1
is war or threat of war In that igl
o. he trusted arbitration would henc
ne forth be regarded, and therefore I
o. could not see that the fact Of Oh
p thinking ourselves right was any re
ot son why we should decline arbitr
to tion Ar between ourselves and anoth
le nation Everybody in England wis