The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-06-30

national law was not referred to arbitration
as we'll as that of fact, seems inconsistent
with any clear appreciation of the nature of
the international system. There is no real
resemblance between true court of Justice
and an artificial tribunal such as the authors
of this suggestion propose. 1t may serve, as
any other body of men would serve, for the
decision of disputes of fact, but every real
judicial tribunal has confded to it q portion
of legislative power without which hardly
any question of law could be brought to
decision. No such delegation of legislative
authority can take place in the case of ma
tions. England or the United States might
possibly submit for the moment to the award
of arbitrators chosen by themselves but for
international purposes it would be useless.
THE DEBATE IN THE LORDS ON THE
TREATY.
From the London Saturday ReUtetg
Lord Salisbury took no fiattering view of
English diplomacy when he declared, not
without certain amount of truth, that many
politicians are disposed to treat the Ameri-
cans on all occasions as spoilt children. Un-
fortunately it is impossible to give to the
conduct of the Government an interpreta-
ton even moderately flsttering to national
vanity. Parents and friends spoil children
through culpable indulgence; but men yield
to overbearing strength only through fear
1t is true that the deferential flatterers of the
people of the United States habitually attri-
butte to the objects of their aduation an utter
want of moral principle, and an INSCRIPTIONS
determination to have their own way in all
things; but their estimate of American cha
racter, if not morally elevated, always assumes
the expediency of yielding to any demand
which may be preferred on behalf of the
United States. Nothing has been gained by
the treaty except temporary relief from the
supposed danger of al unprovoked invasion
of Canada. Earl de Grey aud the Duke of
Argyll can scarcely have been serious ia their
contention that the establishment of the new
rules of international law is benefit rather
to England, which is to be fined for breaking
them, than to America, which has obtained
satisfaction in full for all her demands. If the
rules are equitable and beneficial, both parties
are equally interested in enacting them for the
future; and the American Government obtain
an unqualified advantage by making them re-
respectively applicable to the events of the
civil war. The Fenian claims are abandoned;
the fisheries are given up without a renewal
of the Reciprocity treaty; and an apology is
made for acts which every previous English
Government has systematically defended as
lawful. 1t would perhaps have been in better
taste to have selected some other occasion for
the announced elevation of Lord de Grey by
a step in the peerage. If there were mar
quises in the United States Mr.. Hamilton
motion.
1t is probably true that the Government
and the commissioners have secured the con-
sideration for which they have conceded
everything which their predecessors had re-
fused 1t is due to the more reputable Sec
ton of American politicians to admit that
they have thus far displayed certain magma
nimIty in the celebration of their decisive
diplomatic victory. 1t has for the present
haROrna on OriYNlaa not ha
settlement embodied in the treaty is con-
sistent with the honor and self-respect of two
great powers. Some of the commissioners
themselves have used similar language on
public and festive occasions; and they are
entitled to gratitude for abstaining from all
offensive boasts Their own practice entirely
contradicted their polite phrases; for having
the honor and self respect of their own
country in some degree in their charge, they
held that they best discharged their trust
by steadily refusing every concession, large
or small to their English colleagues. 1t
| appears that it is for the honor of
England to purchase peace and precarious
! goodwill at any price which may be de-
| manded. The honor of the United States,
on the other hand, is consulted by the oppo-
site policy of declining to acknowledge liza
bility even for connivance at the piratical
Fenian expeditions. If any future causes of
dissension arise, and even if the arbitrators
| should deliver any decisions which are favor
able to England, American exigency will be
rendered more stringent by the memory of
its past success. The moderation of the tri-
umphant party will be tested if the Canadian
Parliament rejects the part of the treaty
which relates to the fisheries. In this, as in
all other instances, the commissioners gave,
not gold for brass, but valuable property
without return; yet Lord Carnarvon and
Lord Kimberly give the Canadians sound ad-
vice in urging them to submit to the treaty.
The admission of their produce into the United
States, for which they have always been willing
to exchange participation in their fisheries, will
almost certainly be conceded in short time,
not for the benefit of the Canadians, but in
the obvious interest of the Americans them
selves 1t might have been more gratifying
to have obtained free trade in return for the
surrender of the fisheries; but, on the other
hand, sound commercial system is likely to
be most permanent when it is deliberately
established on its own merits. OF the de-
merits of the rest of the treaty enough has
perhaps now been said. Those who object to
timid and subservient diplomacy are not less
devoted to the cause of peace than the most
nervous of negotiators AS the treaty is con-
cluded, no further advantage can be gained by
dilating on its fragrant and numerous faults.
Lord Russells protest will perhaps be SER
viceable when some new international ques-
| tion requires settlement, and 1t Is we'll that
on grave occasions the truth should be told
once for all, but not that it should be re-
peatedly dinned into unwilling ears.