New-York tribune., 1872-02-13

foars the consequences Of her course toward the
United States.
LETTER FROM MIR. THOMAS HUGHES
A SETTLEMENT on THE BASIS OF MP. SUMMERS
SPEECH DECLARED lMPos>BLE-A STATE
MENT or TIE NEGOTIATIONS FROM AN
ENGLISH POINT OF VIEW.
70 fhe E6iIor Of The Trf6Une.
SIR: Within the last few days have cOnversed
with sevcl al Americans Of ability, and experience in
public affairs upon the attitude Of the British press
with reference to the lease Of the United States"
which is to he laid before the Court of Arbitration
Of Geneva in June next When have assured them
that so far as can judge (setting aside the bit
terness Of some Of the wTiterS-a bitterness which
Tngishmen in general do not feel and every sensi-
be Englishman regrets, the press in this instance
fairly represents the feeling of the country, they
kaye expressed surprise When l have admitted
oa myself share this feeling they have gone near
k1ghing in my face; and when they have found
tat an seTiouE, have wondered how any one, who
knows something of their country, can De absurd
Under these circumstances and seeing that any mis-
carriage in this effort at arbitration will be no laugh
hg matter should be glad to state shortly in your
columns the reasons why our people have been
r0rtled aud astOnshed at the shape your case has
tken.
Ns side will be fresh in the minds of all your read
en- who are interested in this question. Whether
We misunderstood him or not is another matter /;
tut The fact remains that any amicable settlement
cn the basis laid down by him was always and
remains to this day. simply impossible. In the long
discussion which followed, the excitement here
toold down as the merits of the question came out
htO clearer light. believe | am right in saying
that with one exception, every juIist of reputation
On your side admitted that the claims for constluc-
tive damages, raised by him, could not be seriously
maintained. By constructive damages / mean the
expenditure the pursuit of the Alabama and
other vessels, the loss Of your commercial marine,
the enhanced payments for insurance during the
var and the cost of the alleged prolongatiOn
of the war 10y our acts. l think / am
iso right in saying that it generally admitted
On your side that the question was not so much one
Ct pecuniary damage as Of outraged sentiment, and
tbat an admission of regret by England for the
escape Of the Alabama would do more than any pay
ment toward bringing abOut q healthier state of
feeling and an amicabe settlement of all points at
hsne At the same time you never for moment
proposed to waive, and always insisted upon, your
claims for losses arising from the actual destruction
Of vessels and their cargOes by the Alabama and her
colleagues, for all and each Of which you held Us
responsible am not that represent your side
fairly in the above statement but am perfectly GER
tain as TO the general understanding here.
This being so, the joint Commission was appointed.
with the hearty concurrence | believe, of both
nations We heard nothing of what passed at their
conferences but in due the text of the Treaty
oWashingtOn Of was published as the result, and was
eagerly scrutnized. II recited that differences had
trsen growing ont Of the acts committed by the
several vessels which have given rise to the claims
allN lr,v- II Il
Her Majesty had authorized her High Commits
hohers 10 express in friendly spirit the regret
f' Oy the Government for the escape, under
Whatever circumstances, of the Alabama and other
vessels IRON British ports and for the depredatons
committed by those vessels Here at first sight was
su enuie confirmation of our views. England ex-
pressed her regret, and America thereupon limited
D, Claims to the Ges committed by the Sereral ressels"
"n'n had escaped from our ports. But of course
''''Ais may be modified by the operative part Of
my oocunent, so we had 10 look further to what
vas the net result of the Treaty. Then we find in
Ne enaeIing part that 'the high contracting parties
eiee 'hat all the said claims growing out Of
c0A@0'ed by The Aforesaid resseis shall be
..ieHed to Tribunal of Arbitration" and there
"e matter ends. There is not, 10 the whole treaty
""u 10 ShoW that any other claims than those for
ee' losses are TO be referred to the Arbitrators.
w 'ne contrary, in Article ", which sets out what
n' United States viii attempt to establish, after
Nemising thSt an historical statement would be
nAoe oi the conduct Of Government showing
s,p'ed unfriendlness together with an indication
VI "hat you deem our duties to have been "in re-
.iNc' oi tue several cruisers" the Treaty
p'oceeds: They will then endeayor to
~" mat Great Britain failed 10 perform these
ouoes both general and specifically as TO each Of the
.''"'; and that such failure involved the liability
iemnDefate the United States for losses thus
.An'e'eo' that is TO say. by the cruisers Can you
""aef. under the circumstances, that we believed
sOs mao waived the claims for constructive damages
A.,n'iened sboyef Can yOn suppose that, on any
~'uef TERMS we should have consented TO the appl-
on 10 this Of those new rules Of International
with respect 10 the duty Of neutrals, suggested
sJourselyes, which are embodied IN Article VI Of
The Treatyi
ma our case does not rest here. II any possible
.o% can be felt 10 the intention and meaning
VIC 'iesiy. an aid Ia its Interpretation exists in
s' Eoee ol Of the conferences DOW published. In
noeeBent we find your Commissioners, after
'H''t.'hs e all the beads Of constructive damage