The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1871-07-12
The washington Treaty.

of June, Gladstone, in reply to a question,
said that the sixth article of the Treaty
of Washington prohibits the use of neu.
trail ports for the renewal or augmentation
of supplies to belligerents, only when
they are intended for use against other
belligerents, and not when exported in
the ordinary way of commerce. This
was, he said, the understanding on the
part of President Grant and Minister
Schenck. 1t was understood, however,
that on the presentation of the rule for
acceptance by the other powers, the state
ment on this point should be clear. Glad
stone stated that he had received the
assent of the United States Government
to his proposal to submit these principles
of the Treaty to the European Powers
for their acceptance. He believed that
the prospective advantage to England
would be immense. He concluded by
praising the tone of America throughout
the negotiations.
On the same day, in the House of Lords,
Earl Russell, in moving the address to
the Crown against the ratification of the
Treaty of Washington unless the arbi-
traitors were bound only by the interna-
tional and British laws at the time of the
American war, argued that otherwise
England might apply one rule, America
another, and the arbitrator still another.
The ratification of the Treaty might be
demanded to secure peace, but it was, he
argued, dangerous precedent, and an
unwise neglect of the duty of Great
Britain to her American Colonies, when
the fishing interests were sacrificed, for
the Treaty was one-sided even about fish
cries. He asserted that Great Britain had
observed all the obligations of neutrality
during the war, and quotCd from the Blue
Books to prove his assertion, and secuted
the idea of negligence on the part of the
Government at the time. In conclusion,
he said the Treaty sacrificed English pres
tige; it sacrificed all for peace.
Granville said he accepted the discus
sion, but he did not accept Russel's mo-
ton. He explained the circumstances
attending the negotiation of the Treaty,
and declared its terms honorable and adj
vantageous for Canada. While he re-
GREETED the exclusion of Canadian claims
growing out of the Fenian invasions, be
could not help seeing that the interna-
tional gain was incalculable.
The Earl of Derby hoped Lord Russell
would withdraw his motion for the rejec-
ton of the Treaty, which Americans
would now take as a direct insult. He
did not begrudge the apology, but regret
ted the retrospective rule, because it put
on trial, after her admission of
regret for events under laws passed two
years after the events occurred. Person
ally, he accepted the Treaty as an accom-
plished fact, taking the evil with the
good. He hoped no pressure would be
applied to Canada to interfere with the
exercise of her free will
Earl de Grey and Ripon defended the
Treaty and the conduct of the negotia-
tons. He secuted the imputation of the
lamb-like meekness of the British Com,
missioners before the shearers; it was
true they desired to conciliate the Ameri-
cans, but nothing more: several of the
made by the Americans had
been persistently declined, although they
were not propositions to apologize for
for the escape of the Alabama. The settle
ment of the neutrality question was vast
gain, as neutrality is to be England's
future policy. The omission of any pro-
vision for commercial reciprocity was
in view of the progress free
trade is making in America. He defended
the article concerning the fisheries on the
ground that Canada was really benefited
by them.
Lord Cairns deprecated the motion of
Earl Russell The Treaty was as binding
now as if it had been ratified, although it
was badly drawn up and obliged England
to submit to principles hitherto unknown
to the country.
The Lord Chancellor sustained the
Treaty.
The Marquis of Salisbury declared the
Treaty sacrificed the rights of neutrals
to American susceptibilities.
The Duke of Argyle said England
gained in the acknowledgment of certain
great rules of international law, without
making any sacrifice.
Earl Russell then withdrew his motion,
and the debate was brought to a close