The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1869-04-19
GheGntelti9enrer>
THE ALABAMA TREATY
The ALABAMA TREATY
Speech Of Hon. Charles Sumner
Against It's Ratification.
Full History of the Negotiations
With England.
The Ground Of Complaint Against
That Country.
The Extent of Our Losses and the
Rule of Damages.


executive session of the Senate, April
treaty for the settlement of claims the
Injunction of secrecy having been re-
moved by order of the Senate:
MR.. PRESIDENTIAL report. recon-
mending that the Senate do not advise
and consent to Il treaty with q foreign
power, duly signed by the Plenipoten-
GiAry of the nation, is of rare occurrence.
Treaties are often reported with amend
ments, and sometimes without any
recommendation but do not recall
an instance, since I came Into the
Senate, where such treaty has been
reported with the recommendation
which is now under consideration. The
character of the treaty seemed TO justify
the exceptional report. Tho committee
did not hesitate in the conclusion that
the treaty ought to be rejected, and they
have said so, do not disguise the i'm
portance 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, in
stead ofremOving an existing grievance,
leaves it for heart-burning and rancor,
can not be considered n settlement OF
pending questions between two nations.
1t may seem to settle them, but does
not. 1t is nothing but snare. And
such is the character Of the treaty now
under which our 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
semblance of compensation. 1t can not
be for the interest of either party that
such n treaty should be ratified. 1t can
not promote the interest OF the United
States, for we naturally seek justice as
F10ff ~ lsAW Ill
with Great Britain; nor can it promote
the interest of Great Britain, which
must also seek a real settlement of all
pending questions. Surely l do not
err when 1 say that Il wise statesman
ship, 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 candor and moderation,
see that it is extirpated. This is for the
Interest of both parties. and any thing
short OF 1t is failure. 1t is sufficient
to say that the present treaty does no
such thing. and that Whatever may
have been the disposition of the ne2O-
tiatOrs, the real root of evil remains
untouched in all its original strength.
| make these remarks merely to charac-
teriZe the treaty and prepare the way
for its consideration.
THE PENDING TREATY.
If we look at the negotiation which
Immediately preceded the treaty, we
find little to commend. You have it on
your table. l think Tam not mistaken
when / say, that it shows haste which
finds few presidents in diplomacy, but
which is explained by the anxiety 10
reach conclusion before the advent OF
the new Administration. Mr.. Seward
and Mr.. Reverdy johnson both unite
in this unprecedented activity, using
the Atlantic Cable freely. ! should not
object to haste or TO 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 completely the treaty conCeAls the
main cause OF the OilenSe, 1t seems us
if the honorable negOiiatorS were en-
gagged in budding something out of
sight. The treaty has for its model the
Claims Convention of 1888. To take
such a convention for Il model was Il
for the settlement of outstanding
claims OF American citizens OH Great
Britain, and of British subjects OF the
United States, which had arisen since
the treaty of Client in 1915. It concern
ed 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 treaty which has TO de-
termine a national grievance of tran
scendent importance i'll the relations OF
two countries, marked on the threshold
an insensibility TO the true nature OF
the difference to be settled. Al once II
belittled the work to be done. An in
spection of the treaty shows how nom
beginning to end it is merely for the
settlement of Individual claims on both
sides, putting both patches on an equal
ity-so that the sufferers by the mis-
conduct of England may. be counter
balanced by British blOckade-runnerS.
1t opens with preamble, which, in
stead of announcing the unprecedented
question between the two countries,
simply refers to individual claims
which have arisen since 1S53-whlch
WAS the last time of settlement-sOme
OF which are still pending and remain
unsettled. Who would believe that, I'M
der these words of commonplace, was
concealed that unsettled difference
which has already SO deeply stirred the
the American people, and is destined,
until finally adjusted, to occupy the at
tentiou of the civilized world? Nothing
here gives notice of the real question.
quote the preamble, as it is the key
note to the treaty:
"WHEREAs, Claims have at various
times since the exchange OF the rHtlh-
cation of the convention between Great
Britain and the United States of Amer
ioa. signed at London on the Sth of Feb
ruarY, 1858, been made upon the Gov
eminent 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 subjects OF her
Britannia Majesty; and,
"WuEREAs, Some of such claims are
still pending and remain unsettled. Her
Majesty, the Queen of the United King.
dom of Great Britain and Ireland, and
the President of the United States OF
America, being of opinion that speedy
and equitable settlement OF all such
claims Will contribute much to the
maintenance OF the friendly feelings
which subsist between the two couu-
tries, have resolved to make arrange
ments for that purpose Ivy means OF
convention"
The provisions of the treaty are for
the trial of these cases. A commission
is constituted, which is empowered to
choose an arbitrator: but in the event
ofa failure to agree, the arbitrator shall
he determined "by lor' out of the two
nersons named by each side. Even il
This aleatory proceeding were popular
device in the umpirage of private claims,
it is strangely inconsistent with the so
Iemnitv which belongs to the present
question. The moral sense iT disturbed
by such a process at any stage of the
trial; nor is it satisfied by the subse
uuent provision for the selection OF !;
sovereign or head of a friendly State rs
arbitrator. The treaty not merely
makes no provision for the determine
lion of the great question, but it seems
TO provide expressly that it shall never
hereafter be presented. The petty pro
vision for individual claims, subject Il
81 ~ FrOYn tho individual claims o