The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-05-25
The TREATY..
Another Day in Senatorial Executive SEES
sion on the Supplemental Disgrace.
Thurman Arraigns the Ad-
ministration.
CARPENTER DENOyNCES The SURRENDER
The Strange Story Of Fish's
Bad Faith.
Trembling Regeneration Plucked
Up by the Roots.
TIE LOST COPY OF OUR CASE"
Cumulative Evidence
Against Fish.
The Administration Betrayed---The
Senate Deceived.
WHAT BUFFERS RESOLUTION MEANS.
Tho Pro and Con i'm De-
bate To-Day.
Cumulative Evidence
Against Fish.
The Administration Betrayed---The
Senate Deceived.
WHAT BUTLER'S RESOLUTION MEANS.
The Pro and Con i'm de-
bate To-Day.
NO RESULT YET REACHED

WASHINGTON, May a. 1872.
The consideration Of the Treaty of Washington in
executive session Of the Senate reached its climax
to-day Strangely enough, the chief point of In
terest In that body was the question raised by Sir
STANFORD Northcote in his speech some days ago,
and previously referred to by Sir Edward Thornton
In his little talk to the St. Georges Society of New
York The resolution which
GENERAL BUTLER INTRODUCED INTO THE HOUSE,
and which stl hangs fire in that body, contains all
the essential features on which the Senate debate
on this question hinged itself. In order to get a
clear understanding of the whole matter 1t is neces
Hary to go back the beginning of the controversy
In regard to the demand for consequential indi-
rect or national damages before the Geneva Tribu-
nal. 1t will be remembered that
A COPY OF OUR "CAsE'' WAS LOST
some time last fall weeks before the first meeting
OF the tribunal The book was dropped out of
carriage by Secretary Fish and Mr.. william M.
Evarts and It's loss was the subject of inquiry by
the House, under resolution offered by Mr..
Eldrldge, Of Wisconsin. Mr.. Fish never answered
the resolution, and an answer was not pressed for
the reason that the sole object of Its introduction
was to
PREVENT PREvARICATIoN BY THE SECRETARY
OF state on the subject Of its loss The government
onered reward for the book at the time, In adj
yertisement published In the newspapers OF Wash
yngton but the character OF the book not speci
Had In thu odyorfloounnt and pothtno wao aid ro
gpeoting 1t further than that was lost in certain
local city. The book was never recovered, notwith-
standing 1t was confidential document, which had
never been sent to the Senate At the time the State
Department was exceedingly anxious to ascertain
IF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT HAD OBTAINED Pos
SESSION OF IT.
The feeling among the officials Of the Department
and the counsel for the United States before the
tribunal at Geneva was that this book, which con-
tanned everything about our case, including the
vexed question Of consequential damages and
which had been allowed to foil into the streets
OF Washington by the Secretary Of State himself,
could not DO used by the British govern
ment In the preparation OF the English case
without betraying the fact OF the possession of the
lost copy, If such possession was fact 1t was well
understood that the British government was fully
advised OF every species of claims which could
iegttimately come before the Geneva Tribunal under
the treaty, according to the understanding of It's
Scope by the Commissioners who had framedit
If ANY ALLUsIoN HAD BEEN MADE
The English case, filed at Geneva in December,
to the claim for consequential damages, it would
have been taken to mean, by our State Department
people, that such alluslon had only got into the
English statement through the lost copy Our
government, as well as the English government so
thoroughly undertood the question OF direct losses
that each side was well informed long before the
tribunal met as to the positions and arguments of
the other. Our amateur diplomats, therefore,
owing to the fact that copy OF our case had been
lost we're only anxious as to the position which
England, would assume on the question of indirect
damage losses. This was the situation OF affairs
WHEN THE FIRST BRITISH CASE WAS RECEIVED
ut the State Department, and when the question
was asked whether the British case showed any
evidence that the lost book had fallen into English
hands the answer OF one OF the American counsel
was that it did not. To the next question, what
good reason was there for believing that the British
government had not obtained possession OF the lost
copy, the significant reply was made because there
Il o chapter In our case which viii be
aRRAT SURPRISE GREAT BRITAIN,
surprise which the English could not have antci-
pated without showing that they had possession OF
an advance copy OF case. This declaration,
made on the authority Of one OF the American coun-
sci, Is In accordance with the statements made by
Earl dc Grey In the House OF Lords last June and
Sir stafford Northcote in the House Of Commons
last August, long before any question arose as TO
the Interpretation Of the treaty.
In the despatch Of Ear Granville TO General
Schenck on the goth March, abiding to the debate
in Parliament on the 18th June, before the exchange
of ratifcatons he says:-
That Her Majesty's government never intended
60 refer these claims to arbitration, AMI that in
gratifying the treaty they never contemplated their
being revived In the argument before the arbi-
TRAITORS, must have been obvious TO you
from the language used In the debate
in the House OF Lords on the 18th june on the mo-
esty to refuse to ratify the treaty. On that occa
sion I distinctly stated this to be the understand
ing Of Her Maestys government, and quoted the
very protocol OF the Attn May 10 which have refer
red above, az proof that these indirect
claims had entirely disappeared. When Lord
Cairns, to whose speech ansion has been made In
the United States Congress, subsequently said that
extravagant claims might be put In and take their
chance he was met with an expression of dissent.
Moreover, Lord Derby. while cglVcslng the nego.