The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-03-31

Now. what are the objections TO this treaty
We have heard IL said that the ground Is to
be taken by the new administration that IT is
bene ath the dignity of this country to ask for
pecunisry recompeuse for the losses caused
by the Alabams, and that what is to be re-
quired is an apology for the aifront offered to
this country ia permitting her to be fitted out
from British port. The answer TO this sug-
gestion strikes us with great force. In the
first place, we have asked for peouuiary re-
compense to the injured owners of the pro-
peTty destroyed by the Alabama and the de-
maDd has been considered and a mode of try
ing the question of liability has been assented
to. Is it not rather late to say that We have
hitherto mistaken our true dignity, and thai
what we have been clamoring for during the
past three years was not what we want
In the next place, who does not see that the
demand for an apology leads directly to the
issue of war, and that the demand for pecu-
mary reparation of the juries-assented to
as it has been-lesds to no such issueP Who
can imagine that England will consent to apo
logize for the attitude of neutrality assumed
by the Queens proclamation, issued on the
responsible advice of ministers! 1t is not
their habit TO place their executive in a
false position. What one set of ministers has
advised the Crown to do in foreign intercourse
is invariably upheld by all administrations.
But succeeding administration may be very
willing to submit the question of the diligence
of their predecessors to investigation, because
such an inquiry involves their predecessors
alone, and does not involve the honor of
the Crown or of the country. We may be
very sure that, if we press this matter to tae
point OF requiring an admission that the
original attitude of neutrality, as between
two belligerents, was wrongful and REQUIRES an
apology, the unanimous feeling of the nation
will be opposed to any such admission. No
minister could stand up in the House of Com
mons and propose it without being instantly
voted down. But the question whether there
was negligence in the discharge of the duties of
neutrality, is one that any ministry can agree
to try without compromising anything but
the official characters of their predecessors;
and there is no practical utility in raising this
question, excepting to procure reparation OF
the losses which the supposed negligence may
have caused.
From all the private advices that we have
seen, we are satisfied that the feeling is gene.
raj in England that, if America does not
choose to ratify this treaty, England is well
out of the difficulty. 1t was mode of settle.
ment which our Government itself proposed
1t obtained the assent of two successive minis.
tries. Private letters received here within
week declare that the feeling in England il
almost universal that il we are not disposed
to meet them hallway now that they have
advanced halfway at our solicitation, there
is nothing more to be done. 1t is very much
to be hoped that our Government will moi
enter into the hazardous enterprise of endea
voripg to obtain any other apology than sucl
as is implied in the agreement to adjudicat'
the question of liability for certain pecuniary
losses OF our citizens. Any direct apology
must necessarily be preceded by an agre emeni
| of the facts which rendered the acts done OF
| omitted q national insult. If Mr.. Secretary
| Fish and Mr.. Thornton were to sit down in the
State Department together for the purpose o
settling the facts which are to form the basi
of an apology, what prospect is there that the
| could apYee9