Holmes County Republican. [volume] (Millersburg, Holmes Co., O. [Ohio]) 1870-1895, 1871-05-25
SIMMER ON THE TREATY.

| four hours, upon the treaty Ot w aen-
ington. 1t was the first clear expo
sition of the terms of the treaty
and the principles of the interna-
tional law involved, the Senate has
heard. The large majority OF the
Senators have either no knowledge
at all, or a very limited amount, up
on the general subject of our rela-
tions with other Governments. They
will therefore be compelled to CON
slider the law and the gospel on this
matter as expounded by Sumner.
The Senator from Massachusetts, is,
perhaps. the only member of the
body who is thoroughly posted up
ON the leading subjects embraced in
the treaty now before the Senate. He
started out with the assertion that
he approached the consideration Of
the treaty with perfect fairness. He
had no preiudices or preconceived
opinions against it. No Senator
was more anxious than himself that
all differences existing between our
Government and that of Great Brit
ain should be removed. At the same
time he was in favor of maintaining
the national honor and that respect
for the flag abroad which could only
result from respect for it at home.
In many respects this treaty differed
from all the treaties negotiated by
our Government since its fOunda-
ton. 1t was not a treaty of peace,
that is, of a peace which follows
war between two nations-and vet,
to some extent, it was a treaty of
peace. Upon its ratification or re-
lection depended in great measure
the character of the relations which
in the future will exist between the
two Governments. For this reason,
if for no other, it should receive
the most careful consideration of
the Senate. But it was not such a
document as he desired; he was dis
appointed in it. From the very ma
ture of the commission that formed
the treaty he knew that its labors
must result in compromise. The
only question was whether or not the
advantage of the bargain was with
or against us. Senators would have
TO Judge of this for themselves.
Much had been said about the So
called apology coming from the
British side, in the treaty. He did
not regard the language used as con-
veying any apology. e .1s
Her Majesty's Government simply
expressed regret for the escape of
the Alabama and other vessels from
British ports and for the depreda-
tions committed by those vessels.
There was something behind and
beyond this. Everybody knew that
the Alabama and other rebel cruis-
ers were hut the consequences of
Great Rritain's conduct in recognize
ling the rebels as beligerents. If
there was any apology to be made it
was for the fragrant disregard of the
law of nations. Mr.. Sumner then
proceeded to argue at length that
the great wrong done the United
States was in the recognition by
Great Britain of the rebels as bel
ligerents. before they had formed a
government or had possession of q
single port. After disposing of this
subject, he proceeded to consider
the article of the treaty relating to
English claims. a..
He did not think the American
Commissioners should have con-
sented to allow these claims to he
put upon the same footing as those
of citizens of the United States.
They were of q different character;
They did not originate under the
same circumstances. Theyi-were
the result of great Britain's own
misconduct. The attitude she as
sumed towards the rebels, as every
body knew, prolonged the rebellion
at least two years. If the property
of her citizens suffered in conse-
quence, nobody was to blame but
herself. Hence these claims should
not have been admitted here. The
Senator then proceeded to show the
difference between the American and
the English claims. He called at
tention to the fact that the amount
of the English claims had not been
aseertained. Very much Of Mr..
Summers speech was restatement
of the arguments of the famous
speech on the observation-disclosures
treaty.-Pitts. Gag. 90 aieaN