The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-05-14

Reception Of the Washington Treaty Documents
derstandings Between the Two
Governments -Speculations
as to the Result.


regarding the difference existing relative to the
questions to be submitted at the Geneva Confer
ence reached the Senate to-day while Mr. Casselry
was on the floor in opposition to the Supplementary
Enforcement act.
AZ soon as he had concluded motion to 20 into
executive session was carried and the doors were
closed. In the meantime the nest earnest interest
was manifested both on the floor and in the
lobbies The long-expected secrets Of the
negotiations which have been the sub
iect Of many positive assertions and
equally positive contradictions lay before the
eyes OF greedy correspondence carefully
enveloped and sealed with the oflcial wax OF the
White House. 1t was generally known that the
President had expressed the desire that the corre
spondence should be made public. General Porter
who brought it to the Senate, is supposed to have
intmated that successful request to that effect
would find favor with his chief The news
paper people advanced the argument that correct
version, given out officially, would prevent the pos
sibity Of the publication Of more garbled state
ments Every seemed confident that but an
secrecy would be removed and the unofficial world
would be capable of Judging of the great contro-
versy as the few favored officials to whose judy
ment 1t had been confldentlaly confded
When the doors had been closed and the execu-
tive clerks had taken their petitions the mysterious
wax was broken, tile envelope opened and tho cor
respondence read to the Senate. The result
proved the correctness OF the HERALD's de-
spatches on the subject. The basis OF the
misunderstanding was-as is well known, and
test-the assumption OF Great Britain that
the question Of consequential damages should not
have been included in our case before the Geneva
Tribunal. Dispatches ensued regarding the i'm
possibility to fix an exact amount to be paid for
such claims, and Minister Schenck was instructed
inclined to retreat from its position and would
doubtless adhere to its claim for the recognition OF
the principle Of indirect damages, it might accept
the proposition to abandon oil money awards under
such claims In other words the OFFER was indirectly
made that our attorneys or representatives before
the Geneva board would be instructed not to urge
money award.
This is the proposition which the British govern
ment virtually rejected by returning 1t to In such
a manner that 1t was entirely Objectionable and
unacceptable The anxiety Of the administration
to save the treaty then became intensified In fact
our proposition not to press for money awards was
construed by the English government to mean
virtual withdrawal from our claim for indirect
damages. 1t was this misconstruction that made
Correspondence then ensued explanatory OF the
real position of this government There was further
misunderstanding regarding proposition cmanat-
ing from Great Britain to settle the difference by
action outside OF the Geneva tribunal. Explana-
lions followed that, under our governmental organ
izatlOn, any change In the treaty would require
ratification by the Senate.
This was the condition of affairs which led to the
belief that all negotiations were ut an
end for il was known that after Tcnterden's pro-
test Great Britain could not appear as party at
Geneva. The determination OF the administration
TO carry the treaty through at all hazards was 80
earnest that conference was called at the State
Department OF certain members of the Foreign
Committees, which has since been made
memorable by the exposure OF the part-
character of the invitations to attend
Ii. The result OF the deliberations mt
that conference added to the belief that all negota-
tons were at an end. 1t Is evident, however, from
the tenor OF the dispatches that Great Britain had
all the while held in reserve a proposition to save
the treaty. for it Immediately took advantage OF
Secretary Fish's explanation regarding the neces
sity Of action by the Senate to sub
nit compromise, the tenor OF which
was fully set forth In these dispatches last night
II is not yet in condition Of protocol, but the SUBJ
stance Of Is included in the last dispatch received
Ia ntrrr
that the proposition would be submitted to the
Senate for the purpose OF testing the opinion Of that
body on the subject. 1t acknowledges nothing re-
gardng the right wrong of the principle OF
indirect damages but is a virtual agreement be.
tween the two governments that no money awards
shall be made TO either, when either has reason to
complain OF the other for acts done, while one is
neutral and the other at war with any other bel.
ligerent.
This much OF the secret correspondence has
leaked out in such way as to induce confidence In
its trustwortniness.
As soon as the reading had ended Senator Chand-
Ter moved that the INDUCTION of secrecy be removed,
for the purpose of giving the entire budget to the
press. objection to this was made by Messrs.
sumner Sprague and others, who expressed the
opinion that Dasmuch as we have been unofficially
notified OF the intent Of the British government to
make 1t public we ought to wait to see how far
that intent may be carried out.
The opinion finally prevailed that the wisest
course to pursue was to throw the responsibility OF
publicity on the British government. Another in
ducement to continue the mystery OF the executive
session was the evident inclination to oppose the
new proposition on the part OF Senator Thurman
who denounced the whole affair as an effort to
browbeat this government into an abandonment
OF It's wen established position. He referred to the
III, tie latta yvI m
iand IN chow that this IL the third effort made by
that Government to drive us into the ratification Of
| an obnoxious treaty.
Mr.. Sumner, pending the debate to remove the
ban of secrecy, took occasion to say In erect that
| the abandonment OF our original position was de-