The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-06-30
SPIRIT OF The PRESS.
EDITORIAL OPINIONS OF THE LEADING JOURNALS
UPON CURRENT TOPICS COMPLIED EVERY
DAY FOR THE EVENING TELEGRAPH.
THE LORDS ON THE AMERICAN
TREATY

TREATY.
From the London Spectator.
The debate, so far from answering the pur-
pose of it's mover, did indeed practically re-
dound greatly a9 well to the credit of the
Ministry and the Forigu Office as to the
credit of the British Commissioners, whose
chief is to be re warded with a marquisate for
the great service of re.establishing cordial
relations with America. There were only two
really grave points made against the treaty;
first, Lord Russells, that we had established
precedent for submitting our international
actions to be dealt with by Gc-poSt fact0 law,
of which Germany or any other power might
avail herself whenever she chooses to make
an unreasonable demand upon us; the other,
Lord Carnarvon's, that, in Difference to the
supercilious sac g0J0, sac .jU6eO of the United
States, we had withdrawn the Canadian claims
against the United States on account of the
Fenian invasion from the purview of the
treaty, and left them still an unadmitted and,
of course, unsettled outstanding claim. In
relation to both these considerations, we re-
gard the reply of the Government as ade-
quate, and in relation to the first, trium-
phant.
The consent of the British Government to
let the escape of the Alabama and the other
Confederate cruisers from our ports be Judged
by principles of international law which we're
not at the time either admitted by ourselves
or laid down in any of the books was, of
course, very courageous diplomatic act, to
be justified only by plea of intrinsic justice,
involving as o natural consequence high ma
tional advantage. But, as Lord Granville
showed, sound plea may be urged for the
ca post fdct0 principle adopted. We had
already, and without any reference to Ame-
rican pressure, found it desirable to amend
and strengthen our Foreign Enlistment Act,
and in amending and strengthening it we
tod iF,Io hxyxu
now propose to measure our past conduct in
relation to the Alabama. But it is demanded,
Why should we have made the effect of our
new rule retrospective? Was not that the
mere bribe of English timidity offered to
American overbearingness? Clearly not. We
are now anxious to agree with America, for
our own sakes no less than hers, to abide by
the principle of international law just recog-
nized by ourselves in our municipal law; we
are anxious that when next England is at war
and America at peace, we should have the
right to claim from America the honest and
effectual suppression of all privateering at
tacks on our commerce, and to indulge con-
fdent hope that that claim would be attended
to. But, replies Lord Salisbury, as America
has been contending for this principle, even
when we repudiated it, we should have the
advantage of it for the future, in spite of our
refusing to be bound by it in the past. That,
we confess, seems to us an utterly ignoble as
we'll as rather unsafe argument for stealing
q march on America. Here is principle
reciprocally useful to two countries by
which either would benefit greatly when at
war, and by the non-recognition of
which either would lose greatly when
at war-is it generous for either
of them to choose time for first acknowledge
ing it when all the advantage which 1t has
steadily refused to its ally begins, und er
somewhat anxious circumstances, to look
specially attractive to itself If two neigh
bors had discovered source of malaria close
at their doors which they could find adequate
means by Joint action to remove-would 1t
seem fair that after typhoid fever had run
through one house, causing much misery and
expense, the other, in apprehension of the
same event, should suddenly consent to join
in the sanitary reform, without offering to
defray any part of the cost which his previ-
Gus refusal has entailed on his neighbor?
Yet that is what Lord Salisbury not only ap-
proves, but supports, on the principle that
ment will reap the whole advan-
tage of his neighbors good prin-
ciple, whether he himself agrees to pay
part of the cost caused by his delay or not.
TO our mind, if England really thinks
she evidently does,-that the principle now
adopted is right, and that had we adopted it
sooner we might have saved good deal of
not q weak concession, but an act of but little
beyond bare justice, to let it apply to our
conduct in the recent war, well as to the
future. Do we want to make the Americans
feel that we have outwitted them; or, on the
other hand, that we can compete with them
in generosity as we'll as in trade or in war?
If the former, the conduct Lord Salisbury
hints as so advantageous to us would Ger
tainly be the best to pursue, but then
it would have left us worse friends with
America than ever. If the latter, we had
but the course open which the Commits
sioners have actually pursued, namely, to
convince America that it is no one-sided ad-
vantage we are seeking, that we are looking
for her welfare no less truly than for our own;
that in adopting the new principle and Sc
curing its advantages for ourselves in future,
we are willing to take upon ourselves the
penalty of our dilatory course in not securing
its advantages for American purposes during
the immediate past. But then the injustice
of an eG post .fdctO punishment Well, an
eG post fdctO punishment inflicted by one set
of people upon another set of people is, no
doubt, very unfair indeed. The sufferers
have had no notice of what they had to ex-
pect, and are punished by law which for
them had no existence. But this has no ap-
plication to the case where the eG post fGctO
penalty is self-inhicted, where it is volunta-
rily assumed, in fact, instead of inflicted II
was the fault of the country, through its g ov-
eminent, that we only amended our Foreign
Enlistment law too late for AmericaIto,get the
benefit of the amendment Where is the in.