The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1869-06-02
THE ALABAMA TREATY.
Speech of Charles sumner against Its
Ratification.


Sumner, of Massachusetts, in the executiv
session of the Senate, April 13, 1869, on tn
Characterization treaty for the settlemen
of claims, the Injunction of secrecy hayin,
been removed by order of the Senate:
Mr.. President: A report recommendin,
that the Senate do not advise and consent L
a treaty with a foreign Power, duly signed b,
the plenipotentiary of the nation, is of rar
occurrence. Treaties are often reported will
amendments, and sometimes without recon
mendation; but do not recall an instance
since / came into the Senate, where such
treaty has been reported with the recon
mendation which is now under considera
ton. The character of the treaty seemed Il
justify the exceptional report. The Com
mittee did not hesitate in the conclusion
[ that the treaty ought TO be rejected, and thel
have said so. / do not disguise the import
ance of this act; but / believe that in tn,
/ interest of peace, which everyone should
have at heart, the treaty must be rejected
! A treaty which, instead of removing an ex
! isting grievance, leaves it for heart-burninl
( and rancor, can not be considered q settle
ment of pending questions between two ma
( tions. 1t may seem to settle them, but does
| not 1t is nothing but a snare. And such i:
! the character Of the treaty now before us
The massive grievance under which oul
country suffered 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 semblanct
of compensation. 1t can not be for the in.
terest of either party that such a treaty
should be ratified. II can not promote the
interest of the Uniten States for we naturally
seek justice as the foundation of good un-
Outstanding with Great Britain nor can il
promote the interest of Great Britain, which
must also seek real settlement of all pend
ing questions. Surely, do not err when
state that wise craftsmanship, whether on
our side or on the other side, must apply
itself 10 find the real root of evil, and then,
with courage, tempered by candor and mod
Grafton, see that it is extirpated. 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 dispO-
sition of the negotiators, the real root of evil
remains untouched in ali its original strength.
make these remarks merely TO characterize
the treaty, and prepare the way for its con-
sideration.
THE PENDING TREATY
If we look at the negotiation, which i'm
mediately preceded the treaty, we find little
to commend. You have it on your table. /
think l am not mistaken when / say that it
shows haste which finds few precedents in
diplomacy, but which is explained by the
anxiety to reach q conclusion before the ad-
vent of new Administration. Seward and
Reverdy johnson both unite in this unprece-
dented activity, using the Atlantic cable freely
i should not object to haste, or to the freest
use of the cable, if the result were such as
could be approved; but, considering the
character of the transaction, and how com
r.1at fI...
otfense, il seems as if the honorable nego-
tiators were engaged in huddliDg something
out of sight. The treaty has for its model
the claims convention of 1853. To take such
q convention as model was a strange mis-
take. This convention was for the settle
ment of outstanding claims of American
citizens on Great Britain, and of British sub
jeets on the United States, which had arisen
since the treaty of Client, in 1915. 1t con-
cerned individuals only, and not the nation
1t was not in any respect political; nor was
it to remove any sense of national wrong. To
take such a convention as the model for a
treaty which was to determine a national
grievance of transcendent Importance in the
relations of the two countries, marked on
the threshold an insensibility to the true ma
.ure 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 merely for the settle
ment of individual claims on both sides, put
ting both patches on an equality-so that the
sufferers by the misconduct of England NAV
be counterbalaneed by British blockade run
ners. 1t opens with a preamble, which,
instead of announcing the unprecedented
question between the two countries, simply
refers to individual claims which have arisen
since 1858, which was the last time of settle
ment-some of which are still pending and
remain unsettled Who would believe that,
under these words of commonplace, was
concealed that unsettled difference which has
already SO deeply stirred the American peo-
pie, and is destined, until finally adjusted, to
occupy the attention of the civilized world I?
Nothing here gives notice of the real ques-
tion. quote the preamble, as it is the key
note to the treaty:
Whereas, Claims have at various times
since the exchange of the ratifications of
the Convention between Great Britain and
the United States of America, signed at Lon
don on the Sth of February, 1858, been made
upon the Government of Her Britannia Ma
jesty on the part of citizens of the United
States, and upon the Government OF the
United States on the part of subjects of Her
Majesty; and whereas some of
such claims are still pending and remain un-
settled, Her Majesty, the Queen of the United
of Great Britain and ireland, and
the President of the United States of Amer
lea, being of opinion that a speedy and
equitable settlement of all such claims will
contribute much to the maintenance of the
friendly feelings which subsist between the
Two countries, have resolved to make ar
for that purpose by means of a
trial of these cases. A Commission is con-
stituted. which is empowered to choose an
arbitrator; but in the event of failure to
lgree, the arbitrator shall be determined "by
Ot," out of two persons named by each side
Even if this aleatory proceeding were a
proper device in the umpirage of private
claims, it is strangely inconsistent with the
which belongs to the present
question. The moral sense is disturbed by
such process at any stage of the trial nor
S it satisfied by the subsequent provision for
he selection of sovereign or head of a |
friendly State as arbitrator The treaty not |
merely makes no provision for the determi- |
nation of the great question, but it seems to |
provide expressly that it shall never hereafter |
De presented. The petty provision for indi- |
Tidual claims, subject TO a set-off from the |
Individual claims of England, so that in the |
md our country. may possibly receive moth |
ng, is the consideration for this strange sur |
-ender. | borrow term from an English |
statesman on another occasion, If / call it a |
capitulation.n For the settlement of few |
claims, we condone the original, |
ar-reaching and destructive wrong. Here |
ire the plain words by which this is done:
"The high contracting parties engage to |
consider the result of the proceedings of this |
as full and final settlement of |
very claim upon either Government arising |
,ut of any transaction of date prior to the |
of the ratifications of the present |
and further engage that every |
uch claim, whether or not the same may
or laid before the said Commission,
hall, from and after the conclusion of the |
proceedings of the said Commission, be con-
idered and treated as finally settled and |