New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-06-05
FOREIGN.

| TaX-Duke of Edinburg - SerramO'g
/ Clemeney Validated = Bill Against Je-
suits Cuban Insurgent General Cap
tured-The Washington Treaty-Debate
in Parliament Instructions 20 Retire
from Board Of Arbitration.
LIVERPOOL, June 4.-Arrived-C Castine
Maudslie
VERSAILLES, June AIN the Assembly
this afternoon, Jules Favre made power
tul speech against the tax on raw materials.
he pronounced it fatal to French trade
| and manufactures. The tax on manufac-
turers Is unprOductive as a source of reVe-
| nue., and Objectionable in a diplomatic
sense, because it viii ALLEVIATE foreign
| powers.
DUBLIN, June 4.-The Duke of Fdin-
burg arrived here to-day. He drove in an
| open carriage from the railway station to
the viceroyal lodge, and was repeatedly
| and enthusiastically eheered on the Wav
MADRID, June 4.-The Cortes, bv vote
of lao te 20, validated SerranOs eiemenev
| to the surrendering insurgents.
SerranO has taken the oath of office as
President of the Council and Minister of
War in the new ministry. These positions
have been temporarily occupied by Admiral
| Topete.
| BERLIN, June A bill will soon be pre-
sented in the Reiehstag directed against
Jesuits. 1t is understood that it will de-
| priVe members Of that order of the right of
| citizenship.
HAVANA, June 4-A telegram received
here from Puerto Principe announces that
the government troops have captured the
insurgent General Yaclan ll), formerly of
the Mexican army, and his adjutant
The report that IgnaciO Agramente was
wounded in his shoulder and leg in the
action of the tenth ultimo is confirmed
LONDON, June AIN the House of Lords
this evening there was full attendance of
Peers, and the galleries were crowded.
Earl Russell moved his long impending
address to the Queen, praying her majesty
to cause instructions to be given to her rep
FesentatiVes to retire from the Board of
Arbitration at Geneva, if the claims for in
direct damages are not withdrawn by the
government of the United States
Earl Russell spoke at great length in sup
port of his motion. He reviewed the events .
of the war in the United States, and the
circumstances of the escape of the Alabama,
and discussed subsequent negotiations The
government he said, should remember
that England never admitted the
justice of indirect claims What was
the meaning of this delay, this mystery,
this hesitatiOn3 The nation was in the same
state of uncertainty as when the treaty was
ratified. The honor of the government re-
quired that it should speak plainly 1t
should say to the United States withdraw
the indirect claims or no arbitration. There
was no form of extravaganza which was
not to be found in the American case He
held English negOtiators responsible. He
cOntrasted the conduct of the British gov
ernment in relinquishing the Fenian claims
with that of the American government in
advancing its indirect claims. This country
must feel humiliated by the manner in which
the negOtiatOrs had mismanaged the bu-
siness.
He complimented the Canadians on the
loyal spirit in which they had acted on the
treaty, and concluded as follows: E'The ma
ton must show, as it has before, that it is
jealous of the honor of the British crown;
it must treat the United States as it treated
them in the Trent case" TCheers1.
Earl Granville followed. He defended
the right of the American government to
place its own construction on the treaty of
Washington and to introduce the indirect
claims. The only way to escape from the
consequences of opposite interpretations
put upon the treaty by the two govern
ments was through the supplemental
ment had avalled itself Therefore
Earl Russelps proposition did not
touch the point at issue. He defended the
commissioners who negotiated the treaty,
those of the United States as well as those
of Great Britain. 1t was all very well to
pick holes in a treaty which, when first
published, was generally approved. The
British commissioners believed the indirect
claims would be Withdrawn, and they be-
ieved that the American commissioners
had so admitted. AspersiOns on the gov
ernment and the commissioners were un-
founded and unjust He rebuked Earl Rus,
sell for his allusiOntO the Trent affair de-
elaring that it would be cause of inealcula-
BILE i'll feeling. Should the treaty of Wash
ingtOn fail, an event by no means certain.
England would stand the better for having
exhausted the means of removing a misun-
derstanding. The government had been le-
gally advised that supplementary article
was amply sufficient. If their lOrdships ar
rogated to themselves the treaty making
power they would have an enormous re-
spOnsibility. 1t they require the President
of the United States to do that which Mr..
Disrael said in his Manchester speech was
impossible for him to do they would destroy
all chances of settlement. He warned their
lordships that there was no good, but much
tions.
Earl Gray remarked that if negotiations
proceeded as at present the country would
be committed to any mistake the govern
ment made. Lord Denman thought their
lordshlps were needlessly alarmed; even if
the indirect claims were passed, he doubted
whether the House of Commons would
pay the bill The Earl of Derby diselaimed
party feeling in this question. he had been
told he should be careful not to offend
Americans. He should conceive of no
poorer compliment to Americans than
the apprehension that a frank and
plain statement might be the cause
of Offense. Cheers. He did not
want to quarrel or break off negotiation,
he wanted to know where they stood The
negOtiafOrs were either unable to see what
was plain to everybody, or had determined
to make treaty with their eyes shut. If
the understanding is clear that indirect
claims are excluded, why are they not ex-
cIuded in plain terms GCheers.1
The Earl of imberley regretted that Lord
Granville had constituted himself an Amer
ican advocate. He seemed to be under the
impression that the House had determined
that the treaty should fail, and the rea
object and spirit of his speech was its de
tense. He must know that the words
whereby indirect claims would be with
1raWn could be inserted in the treaty with
he consent of the American government.
The Marquis of Salisbury regretted that
Earl Granville should throw responsibility
IN the high joint commissioners. He par
jicularly alluded to the selection the gov
,rnment had made of commissioners for
Great Britain, and limited that they had
been Overmatched by astute Yankees. He
confessed he had no very active regard for
he treaty, and declared his unmitigated
hostility to indirect claims. He Tidiculed
he idea that Americans, if they felt that
hey ought to withdraw the indirect claims
would not do so.
The debate was continued by the Earl Of
ialmesbury in favor of the motion, and
he Marquis of .RipOn against it.