The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1871-05-16
THE NEW TREATY.
~~~~~~~~~.~~>>~~~~>~c~-
The Committee en- Foreign Relations
Reports It FaVOrably.
The Senate in Executive Ses-
sion Upon It.
S,~~~~~~~o~~o~~
Each Article to Be Acted
Upon Separately.
~.~o~~~~.oo-~>~~~o-
Growing Opposition to It's Pr0vi-
siOas Among Senator's.
Earl Russell Crowds at It in the
House of Lords.
New Brunswick and the Do
mimiOn Dissatisfied.
Growing Opposition to It's PrOvi-
siOas Among Senator's.
Earl Russell Crowds at It in the
House of Lords.
New Brunswick and the Do
mimiOn Dissatisfied.
WASHINGTON, May Is, 1871,

The proceedings in executive session to-day re.
qure only brief mention. The treaty favor
ably reported by the chairman Of the Committee on
Foreign Relations Mr.. Cameron without any re-
commentator OF amendment. That gentleman,
after making few remarks, was followed by Sena-
Norton, wac explained certain parts OF the treaty
In response 10 inquiries.
Some general remarks were made upon 1t by
Senators Sumner, ConkIlng Carpenter, Cassery,
Trumbul and others. Some Of the Senators gave
notice that they would ofrer some mendnents to-
morrow.
THE rLAN OF CONSIDERING THE TREATY
was discussed, and 1t decided that each article
should be taken up separately and acted upon. The
Senate refused to take up the resolution heretofore
offered
PROVIDING FOR THE REPORTING
In confidence Of the debate on the Treaty OF Wash
ington by the official reporter OF the Senate said
port to be suuecl to future disposition by that body
One OF the objections against the resolution was that
debate would be thereby prolonged, as Senators
might desire In some future time to see their
speeches IN print Besides, it thought best to
complete the action the treaty as soon as prac-
ncable
ANOTHER REPORTED SENATORIAL LEAK.
Much surprise was manifested this afternoon In
the vicinity OF the Senate consequent on the report
that the statement CT the Joint High Commission
had like the Treaty, prematurey four its way INTO
the newspapers. BY some gentlem en- this was con-
sdered unfortunate, believing it would not
strengthen the treaty, While others, who claimed
knowledge OF the document, expressed n contrary
opinion. Several Of the Senators were informed Of
the reported publication and were not slow In ex.
pressing their disapprova OF the alleged occurrence
which, they said, was the more to be regretted as
the subject involved the question OF continued peace
between the two countries and violated the conf
dence which usually attached to the consideration
OF matters OF great Importance. SO far. however,
there is NO evidence Of such breach in the quarter
which report designated
The opposition to the Treaty Of Washington is said
to be gaining strength among Senators the more 1t
ID subject TO examination. 1t is stated that 1t is In
reality, that Is, In
THE PRACTICAL MONEY RESULT
not so good an arrangement for the citizens OF the
United States claimants against England as was the
Johnson-C Clarendon treaty. The latter provided in
Its first article that oil claims against each COVE
ment since the 10th OF July, 1S53-the date OF the
exchange OF ratification OF the conven-
ton OF that year-shoud be submit
ted to a joint commission Of FOUR with
an umpire in each case OF difference, and IN article
four 1t provided for the adjudication of the Alabama
claims In the Treaty OF Washington all claims prior
to 1861 are excluded, thus cutting OF a really larger
OF the Alabama claims, even should the latter all be
allowed. II was understood that the Joint High
Commission to take cognizance or all claims be.
tween the two governments. When the commission
was first agreed TO Sir Edward Thornton expressed
his opinion that all claims would be considered.
TIE PROTOCOL,
however, relates that when the American Com
missioners contended for tue recognition OF all
claims to make the treaty at least as thorough
In its scope as the Johnson Clarendon Convention,
they were met on tue part OF the English Com
missioners by the declaration that the preliminary
correspondence between MI. Fish and Sir Edward
Thornton limited the inquiry to the period Of the
civil war, and the English side persisted In this
view, as. indeed, 1t would appear In all
their other views TIL the American side SUBJ
mitted. The declaration by Earl Granville
on Friday night in the House OF Lords that the
British government would give every attention to
all matters which would aid it in resistance to the
payment OF these Alabama claims has created
marked impression upon many Senators, who now
declare that the treaty must be subject the most
careful and critical examination and full under
standing OF its various provisions. This has also
caledsattenton to the language of
THE THREE NEW RULES OF INTERN ATIoNAL LAW
which TO govern the Tribunal of Arbitrators and
is alleged that these rules are so worded as to en-
able England really to escape from all responsibility
for the Alabama claims and thus accomplish the
successful resistance TO their payment which Fail
Granville predic s. The first rule is that neutral
government is bound to use due diligence to pre-
vent the fitting out, arming or equippng within It's
jurisdiction OF any vessel which 1t has reasonable
ground to believe Is intended to cruise or TO carry
on war against Power with which
1t is at peace and also to like
diligence to prevent the departure its jurisdc-
war as above, such vessel having been specially
adapted in whole or In part within such jurisdiction
to warlike use. The whole correspondence between
the United States and Great Britain occupying some
tour thousand printed pages, Is 1llep with the
assertion on the part of England, itcrated and
reiterated over and over again, that due diligence was
observed in preventing the fitting out and arming
Of the Alabama, anJ that in TACT she
was not fitted out and armed in a British
port; that the evidence failed TO show she was
fitted out In whole or In part in British waters as n
vessel specially adapted for war. and consequently
this first rule Is so worded as really to acqut the
British government from liability or responsibility in
the matter OF the Alabama Inc question so promi-
nently put by Mr. Sumner to the responsibility OF
England for subsequently recognizing the Alabama,
after she received her guns and armament aboard,
as regular Confederate man.of-war, Is not touched
upon MT oil In the treaty. Consequently II Is
held that II the United states fail to
show mat the Alabama was especially adapted" az
man-ofwar when she left the Mersey, the
American side OF the case is lost. Thc United
States so far have never been able to
get England to admit that the Alabama
was In thus condition when she escaped
into the English Channel, ana Earl Granve's dec
iaration last week is regarded by many Senators as
an evident proof that England is as little prepared
to make the acknowledgment under the Treaty OF
washington as she was before the advent OF the
high Commission. The second rule declares that
che neutral shall not permit suner either peliI-
cerent to make use OF its ports or waters
a. the base OF naval operations against the
other or for the purpose or the renewal or aurmen-
tation OF military supplies or arms or the rccruir
ment Of men, and Is considered by some as I'm.