The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-06-08
THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON.

THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON.
From the Pail Mall Gazette
The full and authentic text of the Treaty
of Washington does not correspond in all
particulars with the accounts of it previously
received through the telegraph and other
channels. While, now that the instrument
is completely known, we do not concur in the
somewhat uncritical applause with which it
has been received in certain quarters
more especially while we fail to understand
how treaty of which the two principal nego-
tiators belonged to opposite political parties
can justly be styled by the Dddy Telegraph
triumph of Mr.. Gladstone's Government
we see no reason to withdraw the opinion
which we gave on less perfect information,
that this country may be well satisfied with the
labors of the High Commission. Doubt
less the most prominent clause which the
treaty contains-the clause in which the
Queen, on behalf of her subjects, expresses
regret, sin a friendly spirit, for the ''escape
under whatever circumstances of the Ala
bama and other vessels from British ports,
and for the depredations committed by those
vessels"-is one which some former English
Ministers would have had the greatest diff
Guilty in swallowing, and it is perhaps unfor-
tunate that the appetite of the present Gov
ernment in such matters should be suspected
of being little too robust. But the clause
should be interpreted in fairness by the cir
cumstances under which it framed. The
treaty is not lengthy document, nor is it
much encountered by detail, vet the time
consumed in its preparation has been very
considerable. 1t is probable, therefore, that
its language in its most important articles has
been very carefully considered, and the
clause in question may be the fruit of
| not uningenious compromise. BY the
| Americans it will no doubt be understood,
| and was doubtless intended to be understood,
as that apology on which they have all along
let it be seen that they set more store than
on any amount of compensation; that Is, as
an admission or confession on the part of the
English Government that its predecessors
| either by omission orby commission, wronged
| the United States in allowing the Confederate
| vessels to leave British ports. But, on the
other hand, the words are probably meant to
be read by Englishmen in their literal sense.
We all regret that the Alabama escaped and
committed her depredations. The ambiguity
is skilfully concealed by the words under
whatever circumstances" If the equipment
and departure of the Alabama had never been
known to a soul in England beyond her
builders, we should still be ready to say that
it was great pity.
The clause defining the measure of the re-
sponsibility which is in future to attach to n
neutral for permitting belligerent cruisers to
be equipped in his territory, or to leave it,
|
the Alabama claims differs materially from
the descriptions of it which have been given
heretofore. 1t neither places an absolute
obligation on the neutral to prevent the act
now made illegal, nor does it specifically
make him liable for very slight negligence.
A neutral Government is ito use due dill
gence to prevent the fitting out, arming or
equipping within its jurisdiction of any ves-
sci which it has reasonable ground to believe
is intended to cruise or to carry on
war against q power with which it is
at peace, and also to use the like diligence
to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction
Of any vessel intended to cruise or carry on
''war as above" Here the expressions educ
diligence" and reasonable ground" belong
to the class of phrases which are employed by
lawyers with the express object of avoiding
the necessity of fixing measure of response
bility. They practically involve an appeal tc
the common sense of some tribunal, like
Jury which adiudicates on the given case
without rule. This popularity of the new
provision is of little consequence so far a
regards the decision on the Alabama claims
? for the treaty establishes board of arbitra
tors which, SO far as those claims are con
? cerned, will discharge the functions of jury
3 and make up its mind what, under the cir
, cumstance, was ''due diligence" and ''rea
3 sonable ground" of belief. But, considered
3 as a permanent provision of internationa
law, the new rule is faulty through its in
7 defniteness. 1t seems to us that, in THAR
future difficulties, nations may dispute a:
a keenly, and indeed more keenly, what is ''du'
| diligence" and when does belief becom
) reasonable" as they have hitherto disputed
4 the very nature of the rule to be applied. 81
5 far as regards the immediate question, tn
9 first of the two canons which are to determine
< British liability does not appear to us open t
y objection as too unqualified concession
t Assuming that the arbitrators thoroughly con
:, slider the facts in a spirit of equity, nobod
Q who is familiar with the story of the Alaban
s and her consorts is likely to believe that tn
: Americans are likely to recover under rul
y like this any exorbitant compensation. Bl
r we hesitate to give similar opinion on tn
:. second of the two new canons. What is mean
@ by an obligation ''not to permit or sutf g
It either belligerent to make use of its ports O
IS waters as the base of naval operations agains
It the other, or for the purpose of the renewS
- or augmentation of military supplies, or arms
G or recruitment of menu" The doubt attache
> to this provision less as a new rule of inter
IS national law than as a measure of liability /
10 the Alabama case. The High Commission ca
ID hardly have adopted it unless some sort c
!? claim lad been submitted to which il applies
sr since tho preamble of the treaty puts th
u Alabama claims prominently forward as Tia
g matter requiring adjustment, it may be tbs
10 one OF tie American grievances is the al