Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1869-04-28
THE CHRONICLE.
Speech Of Senator Sumner
Great Speech Of the Hon. Charles Sumner, In
Executives Session Ofthe Senate. ApriI Is, 1863,
On the JOhnSon-ClarendOn Treaty for
the Settlement OF the Alabama
and other Claims.

Mr.. PRESIDENT A report recon-
mending that the Senate do not ad-
wise and consent to treaty with a for
eign power, duly signed by the Pleni-
pOtentiary of the nation, is of rare
occurrence. Treaties are often report
ed with amendments, and sometimes
without any recommendation but l
do not recall an instance, since came
; into the Senate, where such a treaty
has been reported with the recon-
mendatiOn which is now under con-
sideration. The character of the trea-
ty seemed to justify the exceptional
. report. The committee did not hesi-
. tate in the conclusion that the treaty
ought to be rejected, and they have
said so. do not disguise the impor-
tance of this act, but believe that in
the interest of peace, which every one
should have at heart, the treaty must
be rejected. A treaty which, instead
of removing an existing grievence,
leaves it for heartburning and rancOr,
cannot be considered settlement of
pending questions between two ma
tiOfis. 1t may seem TO settle them,
but does not. 1t isnOthing but snare
And such is the character of the trea-
ty now before us. The massive griev-
ance under which our country suffer-
ed for years is left untouched; the
painful sense of wrong planted in the
national heart is allowed to remain
For all this there is not one word of
regret or even of recognition; nor is
there any semblanee of compensation.
1t cannot be for the interest of either
party that such treaty should be rati-
fed. 1t cannot promote the interest
of the United States, for we naturally
seek justice as the foundation of a good
Understandings with Great Britain, nor
can it promote the interest of Great
Britain, which must also seek a real
settlement of all pending questions.
Surely j do not err when | say that
wise craftsmanship, whether ON our
side or on the other side, must apply
itself to find the real root of evil, and
then, with courage, tempered by can
dor aid moderation, see that it Is eX-
tirpated. This is for the interest of
both parties, and anything short of it
is a failure. 1t is sufficient to say that
the present treaty does no such thing,
and that whatever may have been the
disposition of the negotiatOrs, the real
root of evil remains untouched in all
its original strength. / make these
remarks merely to characterize the
treaty and prepare the way for its con-
sideratiOn.
The treaty has for its model the
claims convention of 1853. To take
such a convention as a model was a
strange mistake This convention
was for the settlement of outstanding
1 claims of American citizens on Great
/ Drsk k,sv g l-s4 NI,.ai
4 United States which had arisen since
the treaty of Ghent in 1915. 1t con-
cerned individuals only and not the
nation. 1t was not in any respect pO-
! litical; nor was it to remove any sense
convention as model for a treaty
| which was to determine a national
| grievance of transcendent importance
in the relations of two countries mark
/ ed on the threshold an insensibility to
the true nature of the difference to be
settled. At once it belittled the work
to be done.
An inspection of the treaty shows
how from beginning to end it is for
the settlement of individual claims on /
both sides, putting both patches on an 1
equality-so that the sufferers by the /
misconduct of England may be coun- /
terbalanced by English blockade run /
ners. 1t opens with preamble, which |
instead of announcing the unprece- !
dented question between the two /
countries, simply refers to individual 1
claims which have arisen since 1855
which was the last time of settlement /
some of which are still pending and 4
remain unsettled. We would believe I
that under these words of common
place was concealed that unsettled
difference which has already so deeply
stirred the American people, and is
destined until finally adjusted to oc-
cupy the attention of the civilized
world? Nothing here gives notice of
the real question. quote the pream-
bic, as it is the keynote to the treaty.
Whereas, Claims have at various times
since the exchange Of the ratification OF the
convention between Great Britain and the
United States OF America, signed at London
the government of her Britannia Majesty ON
the part of citizens Of the United States and
upon the government of the United States
ON the part Of her Britannia Majesty; aud
IChereds, some of such claims are still pend
ing and remain unsettled, her majesty the
Queen of the United Kingdom of great Brit
ain and Ireland, and the President of the
United States of America being Of opinion
that a speedy and equitable settlement of
all such claims will contribute much to the
maintenance OF the friendly feelings which
exist between the two countries. have resolv-
ed to make arrangements for that purpose
by means OF a convention.
The provisions of the treaty are for
the trial of these cases. A commits
sion is constituted, which is empow.
cred to choosean arbitrator; but in the
event OF failure to agree, the arbitra-
tor shall be determined "by Iot'i out
of two persons named by each slde.-
Even if this aleatOry proceeding were
proper device in the umpirage of
private claims, il is strangely incon-
sistent with the solemnity which be-
longs TO the present question. The
moral sense is disturbed by such
process at any stage of the trial, nor is
it satisfied by the subsequent proyis-
ion for the selection of 4 sovereign or
head of a friendly state as arbitrator.
The treaty not merely makes no pro-
vision for the determination of the
great question, but it seems to provide
expressly that it shall never hereafter
be presented. The petty provision for
Individual claims, subject to a set-off
from the individual claims of England
so that in the end our country may
possibly receive nothing, is the con-
sideratiOn for this strange surrender.
Iborrow term from an English states
man on another occasion If l call it
"cahitulation." For the settlement
of few individual claims we condone
the original, far-reaching and ddestruc-
tive wrong. Here are the plain words
by which this is done
The high contracting parties engaged to
consider the result Of tile proceedings ofthis
every claim upon either government arising
out Of any transaction Of a date prior 10 the
exchange of the Publications of the present
convention, and further engage that every
claim, whether or not the same may have
been presented to the notice of, made, pre-
ferred or laid before the said commission,
shall, from and after the conclusion OF the
proceedings of the said commission, be con-
Sidered and treated as finally settled and
barred, and thenceforth inadmissible.
All this quote directly from the
treaty. It Is article five. The nation
al cause is handled as nothing more
than bundle of individual claims,
and the result of the proceedings un-
der the proposed treaty is tobe a "full
and final settlement, p so that hereaf-
ter all claims s.shail be considered and
treated as finally settled and barred,
and theneeforth inadmissible. Here
Is no provision for the real question,
which, though thrust out of sight, or
declared to be FINALLY settled and
barred" according to the terms of the
treaty, must return to plague the two