The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1871-05-16
THE NEW TREATY.
The Committee en- Foreign Relations
Reports 1t FaVorably.
>~~>~-~~>~c~>~~>~~~o~~
The Senate in Executive Ses-
sion Upon It.
~o~~.~~~~~~~~>~>~o~~
Each Article to Be Acted
Upon Separately.
~o~>~~>~~~~~-~~cc~~~~~
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.
New Brunswick and the Do
mimiOn Dissatisfied.
WASHINGTON, May Is, 1871

KkOCEkpING5 OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION.
The proceedings In executive session to-day re-
quire only brief mention. The treaty was 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-
Morton, wac explained certain parts OF the treaty
In response 10 inquiries.
Some general remarks were made upon 1t by
Bcnators Sumner Conkling Carpenter, Casserly,
TrumDull and others. Some OF the Senators gave
notice that they would ofer some amendments to-
morrow.
THE PLAN OF CONSIDERING THE TREATY
was discussed, and 1t was 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
angtOn By the official reporter Of the Senate, said
port to be suoecI future disposition by that body
One OF the objections against the resolution 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 on the treaty as soon as prac-
Ncable.
ANOTHER REPORTED SENATORIAL LEAK.
Much surprise was manifested this afternoon In
the vicinity Of the senate consequent the report
that the statement OF the Joint High Commission
had, like the Treaty. prematurey four its way into
the newspapers BY some gentem en- this was con-
Sidered unfortunate, believing 1t would not
strengthen the treaty, while others, who claimed
knowledge Of the document expressed O contrary
opinion. Several OF the Senators were informed OF
the reported publication and were not slow In ex-
pressing their disapproval OF the alleged occurrence
which, they said, was the more to be regretted as
the subject involved the question OF continued peace
hofrr tro
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 Senator'S the more 1t
is subject TO examination 1t is stated that it 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-Clarcndon treaty. The latter provided in
Its st article that oil claims against each COVE
ment since the Goth Of July, 1s53-the date OF the
exchange OF ratification OF the conven-
ton Of that year-should be submit
ted to joint commission Of four with
umpire in each case OF difference, and In article
four provided for the adjudication OF the Alabama
claims. In the Treaty OF Washington all claims prior
to 1861 excluded thus cutting OF a really larger
aggregate OF claims against England than the total
OF the Alabama claims even should the latter all be
allowed. II was understood that the Joint High
Commission were 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 oil claims would be considered.
THE PROTOCOL,
however, relates that when the American Com
mfssioners conended for the recognition OF all
claims as to make the treaty at least thorough
In its scope as the Characterization Convention,
they were mel on the part OF the English Com
missoners by the declaration that the preliminary
correspondence between Mr.. 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 a
marked impression upon many Senators, who now
declare that the treaty must be subject to the most
careful and critical examination and full under
standing OF its various provisions. This has also
called'attention to the language OF
THE THREE NEW RULES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
which are TO govern the Tribunal Of Arbitrators and
1t is alleged that these rules are so worded as to en-
for the Alabama claims and thus accomplish the
successful resistance to their payment which Eall
Granville predic q. The first rule is that neutral
government is bound to due diligence to pre-.
vent the lifting out armng or equpping 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 use like
diligence to prevent the departure from its urisdic
ton OF any vessel intended to cruise carry on
war as above, such vessel having been specially
adapted In whole or in part within such jurisdiction
to warike use The whole correspondence between
the United States and Great Britain occupying some
Tour thousand printed pages. Is nep with the
assertion on the part of England itcrated and
reiterated over and over again. that due diligence
observed In preventing the fitting out and arming
of the Alabama and that in TACT she
was not fitted out and armed in n British
port; that the evidence failed TO show she was
fitted out In whole or in part IN British waters. as
vessel specially adapted for war, and consequently
this first rule Is worded as really TO acqult the
British government from liability or responsibility in
the matter OF the Alabama. the question so promi-
nenty put by Mr.. Sumner as to the responsibility or
England for subsequently recognizing the Alabama,
after she received her guns and armament aboard,
a. regular Confederate man-ofwar, Is not touched
upon at all In the treaty. Consequently 1t is
held that the United states fail to
show that the Alabama especially adapted" as
q man-ofwar when she LEFT the Mersey, the
American side OF the case is lost. The United
States so far have never been able to
set England to admit that the Alabama
was In this condition when she escaped
into the English Channel, ana Earl Granvilles dec
iaration last week Is regarded by many Senators as
IN evident proof that England is AZ little prepared
IN m
washington as she was before the advent OF the
njgn Commission. The second rule declares that
che neutral shall not permit or surer either pelli
cerent to make use OF its ports or waters
as the base OF naval operations against the
other. for the purpose OF The renewal or aurmen-
tation OF military supplies or arms or the rccruit
ment Of men, and Is considered by some a. I'm.