The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1871-05-24
The Treaty Before tho Senatc-views oil
IL on Bath Sides the Atlantic.

IL Bath Sides tho Atlantic.
| We have In orr comments on the treaty
between the United States and England, which
was the work of the Joint High Commission,
adopted the well known motto OF General
Grant on home politics, and have said, Let
us have peace" BY this we mean harmony
and friendly feeling between the two great
English speaking nations of the world, while,
at the same time, we have not thought that
actual war could occur now If existing differ
ences were not adjusted. The people OF both
countries are high spirited, brave and sensi-
tive on a point of honor or right, but they are
| practical, too, and, considering the vast COM
mercial and other interests at stake and the
frightful consequences that war would involve,
there was little probability of bloody con-
fct. Such war would be disastrous enough
to the United States, bat more calamtous
to England. 1t would be great
misfortune to the world and to the cause OF
civilization. Therefore it was well to settle
existing differences, though they were not
| likely to lead to immediate war, in order to
avoid the possibility of war hereafter and to
|
the same blood and language. Hence we
have said, 'Let us have peace" and have
been willing to make some concessions to that
end. This feeling or view of the matter has
led the American people pretty generally to
| favor the treaty and TO trust TO the govern
ment in making it, while they know really
very little about its provisions or the principles
| involved.
But there is opposition to the treaty both in
this country and England, as well as in the
colonies. The opposition in England is po-
| litical. Disraeli, Earl Russell and others who
have spoken against the treaty, from the IN
| authorized reports that reached them, were
Influenced by political and party motives.
Those opposed to the Ministry make point of
attacking every measure and the policy of the
| men in power. The very measures assailed
| by the opposition would be proposed, per-
| haps, by the leaders Of that party if they
were In power. This is the system of
political tactics in England. We pay little
attention, therefore, to the opposition to the
treaty by Disraeli, Russell or others in Paria-
ment. Then, the English must grumble at
everything. However favorable a treaty may
be to them the British must be critical and
must show their national egotism, and this
even when they desire and intend to accept it.
In all international affairs or propositions
British pretenson stands out prominently.
Yet, apart from the opposition to the Washing
ton Treaty by those opposed to the Gladstone
government, the people of England we
believe, wish to see it ratified. Not that they
understand much about it, perhaps; bat they
are aware that it is calculated to settle difficult
ties and to cement the friendship of the two
countries. They, like large portion of the
American people, look favorably at it on this
principle alone without thinking much about
the details. The press Of England generally
approves, also, Of the treaty, partly for the
same reason and partly because il has the
sagacity to see Great Britain will have the
best Of the bargain.
The opposition to the treaty in this country
is local to some extent, and is strongest
among the fishermen Of the Eastern States
General Buffers letter to Senator Ames,
which we published yesterday, shows this
The General may be regarded as the month
piece Of his constituency, the Gloucester
fishermen, in this matter He declares that
the treaty, if ratified, will ruin the fishing
interests Of the East and destroy that fine
nursery Of our seamen and navy. There is,
no doubt some truth in what he says, though
he pleads like skilful lawyer for the special
interests Of his clients on this point. Strange
70 say, too, the colonial fishermen make use
Of the same argument against the treaty.
They pretend that the New England fishermen,
the very people whom General Butler SAYS
will be ruined, will have the lions share of
advantages, and that they, the colonial
fishermen, will be the sufferers. In fact
the opposition to the treaty is as strong
on the part of the colonial fisher
men as with those of Massachusetts,.
| This curious state of things shows that
both want to drive hard bargain and that it
| may be difficult to reconcile them to the treaty
1t must be remembered, too, that there is a re-
markable feature in the treaty which calls for
| the ratification of that part of it relating to
the colonies by the colonists or colonial gov
| ernments. We suppose, however, that the
| imperial government of Great Britain can if
| it wishes, force the treaty upon the colonies.
just as the government at Washington can
override the opposition of the New England
| fishermen.
The hostility to the treaty in the United
States Senate seems to be rather feeble, and
the probability is that it will be ratified. Most
of the republican Senator'S are for it, because
| it is an administration measure, and because
they hope the party may be strengthened by its
ratification. Mr. Sumner opposes it, partly
upon principle and partly because he was