Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1872-05-17

The correspondence of the diplomatists at
! Washington aud London on the aroiratloh
| difficulty has been published without authority
but no donbt correctly. IL occupies twenty COT
nmns in a New York paper. A few people will
rasd If from a sense of duty, and still fewer
u,i,bout that stimulus, butthe majority Of read
orc will take small interest in its dreary re-
bearsal of arguments, already thoroughly can
vassed, and its more or less dextrous evasionS
! and finesse The results of the correspondence
were published some days ago, and the general
nature OF the process by which they were
reached. Mr.. Fish here appears TO quite as
good advantage as his diplomatic opponent;
both IN manner and substance his dispatches
and notes compare favorably with those in which
the English view OF the difficulty is presented. 1t
is suggested by Washington correspondent that
the premature publication of these documents
may have an unfayorable influence on the nego-
tiations which are not yet formally concluded:
but they are so far advanced that it seems un-
reasonable TO apprehend any trouble at this
stage from such course, nor indeed is there
any obvious reason why the publication of each
dispatch, as soon as it was received or sent
should have done any harm. The people might
then have found time to read the correspondence
by instalments, which few of them will be able
or inclined to do now that they get such for
midable mass of it at once In regard to the
preparation of our Cease" for which Mr.. Ban
croft Davis has been so roundly abused, the
Washington correspondent of the Cincinnati
Gazette riyes a statement which we have not
seen elsewhere, putting the responsibility for
the indirect claims article upon Caleb Cushing.
He says:
When the uproar began in England over the
publication of our case because il included
demand for consequential damages, it caused
great surprise on all sides in Washington. Only
a few had seen the document which was creating
the trouble id London, and the synopsis OF our
case as it appeared in several journals made no
such allusion TO the last chapter as 10 attract
general attention. Very well informed persons
in the public service here regarded the excite
ment reflected by the British press 10 be thing
" orked up for effect after English lawyers had
carefully reviewed the arguments of our case
and found them of such character as TO make
sure that they would stand before the Geneva
conference.
To the majority of public men here the elab-
Drate chapter in our case on indirect claims was
quite as much surprise as it was in London,
his general aStoniShment led to the story that
MIR. Bancroft Davis had prepared this chapter
ln his own responsibility, after the rest Of the
case had been discussed by The cabinet and APP
proved This, however, turns out 10 be incOr-
rect. 1t seems that Mr. Davis had not presented
the claim for indirect damages as a distinct
matter and under a separate head, but had
woven it with greater or less defnteness through
the whole argument. 1t was Mr.. Fish who de-
cided TO call out these incidental presentations of
this claim, and condense them into separate
chapter. He consulted with Mr.. Cushing in re-
gard to the matter, and employed him as an at
rorney TO prepare this chapter of our case. And
in this way it was attached as the closing chap
ter of the arguments on the part of the United
SfnIns