The Middlebury register. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1850-1882, 1871-07-04
The Ratification of the Treaty.

The official announcement has been
made of the exchange Of the treaty Of
Washington. 1t was consummated on the
18th ut. 1t is source ofprofound graft
ficatior that this ugly controversy so long
pending is at last in the way of an AMIGA
BILE adjustment. There can be no difficult
ty in concluding the settlement as the
principles by which the Commissioners
are to be governed in determining actual
damages and adjusting claims growing
out of the Alabama depredations, are
definitely fixed,by the terms of this treaty.
The feeling of the people of the United
States is only that of qualification. The
current sentiment among Englishmen is
that of underlined dissatisfaction feel
ing that they are to be made to pay dam
ages on principle of law not existing in
their code. The New York Times says
the average Englishman, who, on
such topics, is a model of stupidity, will
evidently think himself wronged by this
treaty, and,if the decision of the arbitrat-
or be against Great Britain, will feel that
he has to pay damages on unreasonable
rules of law, got up after the offense by
his adversary. Now this whole idea and
popular statement is perfect nonsense.
And those who desire a casonable settle
ment of the international difficulties on
grounds which "the average man. every
where will understand, should make this
evident to the British popular mind.
In the first place, the British and
American municipal law are almost
precisely the same as bearing on the
questions at issue. Both laws forbid
making the ports Of their countries the
base of warlikc expeditions, and constitute
it criminal act to fit out, arm, or equip
a vessel, with intent to employ it in the
service of foreign State against Power
at peace with the country passing the law.
The only difference between the two acts
is, that our own makes it the duty Of
municipal officers to be more strict in ar
resting vessels for probable warlike intent
than does the British act, Both forbid
the same things, and both have apparent
ly the same humane and reasonable OBJ
ject To prevent a bclligerent from
making use Of the resources and ports of
neutral to injure his opponent. As it
happens, the British authorities had inter-
preted the law selfshly, and continued to
do so during our civil war Our Gov
eminent las been consistent public spir-
tied and honest in its execution of the
Neutrality laws from the beginning. We
urged neutral rights, when weak Power,
even at the lannon's mouth, against a
superior one. We stood by our own
principles toward inferior Powers, when
our interest was in stretching belligerent
rights, There is no duplicity or false
dealing in this matter through our history.
We again urged these principles on the
British Government when rebellion had
split the nation in two, and was apparent.
ly draining its lile-blood. And even then
in our life.and-death struggle, we would
have gone to war with Great Britain had
these principles been utterly and openly
trampled on by the British authorities.
We are still foremost, in this treaty, ad.
vocating the same "rules" or principles"
when they have ceased to be of advantage
to us, and are Of immense Importance to
Great Britain.