The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1871-05-29

that they do not believe their to be strong one
under the language o. that treaty, ana the refusal
OF the British side To consent To ts aoro2atiOn Will
be brought up to demonstrate that the arbitrator
cannot 20 outside OF the words OF the treat and it5
Will not he within the limitations OF his powers that
the language OF the treaty OF 1916 was lgno andy
used ana mat In order to get at the real Intentions
Vi the neQotators 1t shall be put aside. III
such power had been intended 70 be given the
arbitrator the reference would have made, not
upon the artce OF the treaty but fine merits Of the
subject, aside from the language OF that Instrument
and this has not been done. Without going st
all into the question a. to which should be me chan
mel 1t IL held that the great danger of the reference
Is, that no matter how overwhelming equities OF the
American claim may be, a strict legal DECISION on
the words or the treaty may be tue means on decd
ing the question adversely 10 us direct VIOLA
ton OF our rights in consequence OF tue loose man
ner In which the treaty OF 1S46 drawn.
The country In dispute embraces several islauds
and IS about four Hundred square miles in extent,
Washington Territory AZ Whatcom county. A purely
legal decision, which technically exclude ali cqul-
table considerations and evidence outside the words
OF the treaty, viii lead to great bitterness the
part OF the American citizens on the Pacific coast.
That ls the risk run and from which there can now De-
the language OF the first article places the matter
precisely as The British government has desired for
not have '" been n agreed to BY the United
States even aS compromise 70 auect 0ther
disputed territorial ' question ha, always enlisted
great Telling and IN the present instance this fee
ing Will be intensified II the United States lose their
case, not upon the merits OF tho question, but upon
the careless and ignorahtly drawn language OF the
treaty or lS46
THE REAL MEANING OF TIE TREATY.
review o, the whole treaty shows shat
whether any, substantial advantages have heen
quent events. The arbitration agreed upon
regarding the Alabama claims does not
necessarily place them in any better position than
they occupied before under the provisions OF the
Johnson Clarendon Treaty, but IL affords mode by
which they can be adjusted In some way II Eng
land sees ut 10 resist their and succeeds In
doing so, It cannot fail to Leave bitter feellnR To-
wards her In the United States, which will be more
dangerous than the passive sensbility since the
close OF the civil war. The Claims Commission IL
considered positive advantage to England. me
questions with the Dominion Of Canada nave not
been resolved IN any waj by the treaty. The sub
mission or the Northwestern wa.er boundary q,les-
ton to arbitration Is also viewed as gain TO Eng
lsn diplomacy. This Is fair ami practical reyurne
OF the situation. as was regarded by the SENATE.
While the treaty In Itself settles nothing, u opens
way for such adjustment OF all the questions as may
either cement the bonds OF friendship between the
widely than ever: In the Interests OF peace the
Senate acquiesced In the treaty, but 1t cannot
DO denied that In the minds Of most Senator's
hope struggled with anxiety. The stngu-
Commissioners chung to oil! their positions ana
the ready assurances which Earl Granville gave to
the House OF Lords that her Majesty's governments
would use every effort to resist the payment OF the
United states almost unanimously believe to be
just aud honorable demands against Eng
land-gave but little reason TO expect
favorable conclusion; while, In order 10 ar
policy OF the government OF the United States since
It's formation has been changed as 1t Is alleged and
for the first time In our history we appear as par
ticipants by treaty stipulation IN framing code OF
what Washington In his Farewell Address described
as ''enfangling foreign alliances"