The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1871-05-16

four hour rule. As lar as the augmentation or
military supplies or arms is concerned 1t might be
the hidden meaning that In case the United States
were at war. their national vessels could not be sup
piled with coal outside territorial limits: but pro-
vision OF that character would necessarily be utterly
dsregarded by the United States in such an event,
nor does II prevent neutral selling arms or mum.
lions Of war to any party the risk OF delivering such
arms resting with the purchaser. AS to the prolbi
ton OF the recruitment OF men,, that already is the
law and the practice with the United States as Eng
land discovered during the Crimean war. The third
rule is merely reeration OF the promise to exer.
else due diligence in carrying out the other two
rules.
THE OPPONENTS OF THE TREATY,
therefore, contend that the rules can have no
retroactive practical application, but that while
they will not compel the payment Of the Alabama
claims, and the claims growing out Of the damages
by the other AngloC Confederate ships are consd-
cred still weaker under the light Of the rules, they
answer q twofold purpose now. One Is to induce
the acceptance OF the treaty by these
GATHERING GENERALITIEs,
and the other is to tie the hands Of the
United States effectively in the future. Wher-
ever the matter is alluded to in the treaty care
Is TAKEN 1t is said, to expression which can
be construed into an acknowledgment that Great
Britain has failed to fulfil any duty or duties. II it
meet the cases OF the Alabama and other Anglo
Confederate vessels ID would, 1T is held, have been
clearly stated that such was their object; but, on
the contrary not only does Earl Granville refuse to
accept such an Interpretation, but declares that the
government will
RESIST THE PAYMENT OF THESE CLAIAs
in every way; but the abest lawyers in the Senate
believe that the rules are framed in such manner
and with such careful and delicate phraseology as
n frcy, 1io,il
the United States much more easily than II the rules
were omitted altogether Great opposition Is
gathering to article fourteen OF the treatytne arti
Gle providing for the payment Of
THE CLAIMS BRITISH SUBJECTS
Against the United States 1t is alleged that the
protocol qualities the extent OF these claims but the
treaty itself does not. Under the language OF the
treaty "a claims" OF any and every character,
to come up for adjudication. All the money now
in the Treasury OF the United States for cotton
seized, which was claimed Dy British subjects as
theirs by virtue OF assignments from the rebel gov
eminent, and amounting to some seventeen mil
lion dollars, Will have 1t is alleged to be given up,
although 1t Is known that the equivalent given
by these British claimants for most OF it
was the means Of enabling the Confederates to
carry on the war against the United States. As to
the explanations in the PROTOCOL il any such exist
by which these British claims might appear to be
subject to certain limitations, the idea Is secuted
that anything In the protocol limit affect in
any way the language of the treaty itself. proto
col Is mere record Of the dlscussions-nO
more and no less. Usually the protocol is made
up after each sitting, and thus presents
sort Of report OF the proceedings In the pre-
sent case 1t Is well known that the protocol was
not made out at the time, but was drawn up
after the treaty had been agreed upon by the two
secretaries from their recollection OF the proceed
ings In ordinary laws the courts never think OF
taking the debates In Congress to control them in
the construction OF the law. That Is construed from
Its language, and If obscure an endeavor is made
to get at the meaning OF the awmaker, but not by
referring to the discussions pending the
actment OF the statute. treaty being the highest
law OF the land is construed with even.
II possible, greater exactitude ana 1t Is therefore
held to be absurdity to talk OF the protocol
trolling the language Of the Convention, especially
| when, as in the OF the present treaty In the
matter of British claims there absolutely no OBJ.
scure expressions w5fos Of limitation which rem.
der the meaning at all difficult reach. The arti-
| Giles regarding
THE FISHERIES
are revival Of the articles OF the old reciprocity
treaty, with an additional provision looking to the
payment OF sum OF money. 1t Is held by several
Senators that the freedom OF our fisheries and the
freedom OF our markets to the Canadian caught
FISH and the product OF fish Is even greater equva-
lent than the Canadians should have received for
the inshore fishery privilege without the extraordi-
nary provision looking to paying them large sum
of money besides. The equivalent OF free entry for
Canadian caught FISH into our markets will permit
he Canadians to compete with American fishermen
IN the sale OF the deep fish catch. Our fisher
men have no market for their fish in Canada. SO
that for the liberty of catching deep sea
n
dian coasts, the treaty enables Canadian
fishermen to compete directly with ours in our own
markets for all kinds OF deep sea fish, matter
where caught. AS the Canadian fishermen labor
under lighter taxation than the fishermen Of the
United States having no war debt to pay and no
tax to make up the material used In their equip
ment and with free salt, 1t Is feared, H. the treaty
goes into effect the American fishermen, with their
greater burden or taxation, will be driven from
the water, merchant marine is already driven
from the ocean by the cheaper British marine. II,
in addition to this, the United States have to pay
them large sum OF money, the advantages will be
still more the side OF the Canadians. The ques-
ton OF the free navigation OF
THE ST. LAWRENCE AND ITS CANALS
is made by the convention matter OF treaty stpu-
lation, but Senator'S who have examined the subject
declare that while this has always been practically
the case, and that It Is to the interest OF Canada
should be, as the Canadian government derives
even more income from the American use OF those
canals than from the tolls collected on their own
vessels, yet that the treaty of Washington provides
now for great equivalents for this privilege, which
was always free to us before without seeking any
greater equivalent than the tolls collected from
the American vessels. These equivalents consist of
o stipulation pedging the United states to
endeavor to get the freedom OF the State canals for
Canadian vessels, and IN q provision as to vessels
on the lakes which VIII give to Canadian steamers
almost monopoly OF the water carrying trade he.
tween Chicago and Lake Ontario and, In effect,
throw open the lake coasting trade to the Cana
dams wherever the transit Is through the weland
Canal. Another equivalent is placing the transit
trade under the stability OF treaty stipulation, a
matter which the Canadians have for years