The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1871-05-16


four hour rule. AS iar as the augmentation OF
military supplies or arms Is concerned 1t might be
the hidden meaning that In case the United States
were at war; their national vessels could not be sup
piled with coal outside our territorial limits; but pro-
vision OF that character would necessarily be utterly
dsregarded by the United States In such an event,
nor does IL prevent neutral selling arms or mum.
lions OF TO any party the risk or delivering such
arms resting with the purchaser. AS to the prohib
ton OF the recruitment OF men," that already is the
law and the practice with the United States as Eng
land discovered during the Crimean war. The third
rule is merely reiteraton Of the promise to exer
else due diligence in carrying out the other two
rules.
THE OPPONENTS OF THE TREATY,
therefore, contend that the rules can have no
retroactive practical application, but that while
they Will not compel the payment Of the Alabama
claims, and the claims growing out Of the damages
by the OTHER Anglo Confederate ships are consid-
cred still weaker under the hight Of the rules, they
answer a twofold purpose now. One Is to induce
the acceptance OF the treaty by these
GLITTERING GENERALrTIEs,
and the other Is to tie the hands OF the
United States effectively IN the future. Wher-
ever the matter is alluded to in the treaty care
is TAKEN 1t is said, to use no expression which can
be construed into an acknowledgment that Great
Britain has failed to fulfil any duty duties II 1t
had been intended by the adoption OF the rules to
meet the cases OF the Alabama and other Anglo
Confederate vessels ID would 1t is held, have been
clearly stated that such was their object; but, on
the contrary, not only does Earl Granville refuse to
accept such an Interpretation, but declares that the
government will
RESIST THE PAYMENT OF THESE CLAIMS
In every way; but the ablest lawyers in the Senate
believe that the rules are framed in such manner
and with such careful and delicate phraseology as
will enable England TO escape from her liability to
the United States much easily than II the rules
were omitted altogether. Great opposition Is
gathering to article fourteen OF the treaty-tne art
Gle providing for the payment OF
THE CLAIMS OF BRITISH SUBJECTS
Against the United States. It is alleged that the
protocol qualities the extent OF these claims, but the
treaty itself does not. Under the language Of the
treaty "al claims" OF any and every character
to come up for adjudication. All the money now
in the Treasury of the United States for cotton
seized, which was claimed py British subjects as
theirs by virtue Of assignments from the rebel gov
ernment and amounting to some seventeen mil
lion dollars, Will have 1t is alleged, to be given up,
although 1t Is known that the equivalent given
by these British claimants for most OF 1t
was the means Of enabling the Confederates to
carry on the war against the United States. AS to
the explanations in the protocol If any such exist
by which these British claims might appear TO be
subject to certain limitations, the idea Is secuted
that anything In the protocol can limit or affect in
any way the language of the treaty itself. proto
col is mere record Of the dIscussions-no
more and no less. Usually the protocol is made
up after each sitting, and thus presents
sort OF report of the proceedings. In the pre-
sent case 1t Is well known that the protocol was
not made out at the time, but was drawn up
after the treaty had been agreed upon by the two
secretaries from their recollection OF the proceed
ings. In ordinary laws the courts never think OF
taking the debates in Congress to control them in
the construction Of the law. That is construed from
its language, and If obscure an endeavor Is made
to get at the meaning OF the lawmaker but not by
referring to the discussions pending the en-
actment Of the statute. treaty being the highest
law OF the land is construed with even
If possible, greater exactitude, ana 1t therefore
held to be an absurdty talk of the protocol con-
trolling the language OF the Convention, especially
when, In the case OF the present treaty In the
matter OF British claims there absolutely OBJ.
scure expressions or WORDS Of Limitation which rem
der the meaning at all difficult to reach. The arti-
Giles regarding
THE FISHERIES
a revival Of the articles of the old reciprocity
treaty, with an additional provision looking to the
payment OF a sum OF money. 1t IS held by several
Senators that the freedom Of our fisheries and the
freedom OF our markets to the Canadian caught
FISH and the product OF fish Is greater equva-
lent than the Canadians should have received for
the inshore fishery privilege without the extraord
nary provision looking to paying them large sum
of money besides. The equivalent OF free entry for
Canadian caught FISH into our markets will permit
he Canadians to compete with American fishermen
In the sale OF the deep sea fish CATCH Our fisher
men have no market for their fish in Canada, so
FISH within three miles of the Cana
dian coasts the treaty enables Canadian
fishermen to compete directly with ours In our own
markets for all kinds of deep sea fish, no matter
where caught AS the Canadian fishermen labor
under lighter taxation than the fishermen Of the
United States, having no war debt to pay and no
tax to make up on the material used In their equip
men, and with free salt, 1t Is feared, IT, the treaty
goes into effect the American fishermen. with their
greater burden or taxation, will be driven from
the water, merchant marine is already driven
from the ocean by the cheaper British marine. II,
in addition to this, the United States have to pay
them large sum OF money, the advantages will be
stl more on the side OF the Canadians. The ques-
ton OF the free navigation Of
THE ST. LAWRENCE AND ITS CANALS
is made by the convention matter OF treaty slpu-
lation, but Senators who have examined the subject
declare that while this has always been practically
the case and that is to the interest OF Canada it
should be, as the Canadian government derives
even more Income from the American use of those
canals than from the tolls collected on their own
vessels, yet that the treaty OF Washington provides
now for great equivalents for this privilege, which
was always free to us before without seeking any
greater equivalent than the tolls collected from
the American vessels. These equivalents consist OF
q stipulation pledging the United states to
endeavor to get the freedom or the State canals for
Canadian vessels, and in a provision as to vessels
on the lakes, which VIII give to Canadian steamers
almost monopoly of the water carrying trade be-
tween Chicago and Lake Ontario, and, IN effect,
throw open the lake coasting trade to the Cana
dams wherever the transit Is through the Weland
Canal. Another equivalent is placing the transit
trade under the stability OF a treaty stipulation,