The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-02-25
The Alabama Claims Question-What
To Bo the Ends

Notwithstanding the courteous tone of Lord
Granville's note, and the more moderate tenn
per manifested by the English journals In their
discussion of the Washington Treaty and the
American claims, 1t appears to be certain,
from the debates in the English Parliament
and from the latest information received by
cable from England, that there is to be,
on the part of the British government, a
persistent and general opposition to what
are termed the indirect or consequential dam
ages set forth in the American case to be
laid before the Geneva arbitrators. The copious
extracts from the leading English journals
commenting on the parliamentary debate, pub
lished during the past week, present a pretty
correct view Of the British sentiment or, at
least the views of those who do the thinking
for the English people and lead public
opinion. And there appears to be no CIV
ing way from the position taken at the
start, that the British government cannot
admit the claim for indirect or consequential
damages to be considered by the Geneva
arbitrators.
IT. then, the British Cabinet the admins
of all shades of politics, the press, represent
ing all parties, and public sentiment generally,
resolve to maintain this position, how can the
difficulty be solvedp We assume, of cours e,
that our own government will not recede. 1t
is understood ct Washington and by the people
of the United States everywhere that the case
the government has made up for the consider
alton of the Geneva arbitrators will neither
be withdrawn nor modified. The President
has said so; the debates in Congress show that;
Mr.. Adams our arbitrator, thinks it fair to
submit the claims as set forth in the Ameri-
can case to the Geneva arbitrators, and pub
lie opinion accords with the ground taken by
the government 1t is not party question
either here or in England. 1t is national
one on both sides. Since each nation has
taken ground 80 positively and in direct oppo-
sition on point so sharply defined that it
cannot be explained away, national consis-
tency, if not national honor, Is involved.
Though Mr.. Gladstone might have had chiefly
in view the political object of counting popu-
lar favor and strengthening his power when
he denounced in strong terms the American
case, the question at issue is now placed be-
yond party control.
The British Premier is flexible, and, as we
said, has already modified his tone but can
he, In the face of his positive language and
the public opinion he has created, make
complete somersault? Can he, to use a
strong colloquial expression. back down COM
pletely? He has committed himself, and the
opposition, aided by popular sentiment, will
hold him to the position he assumed. This
is evident from the tenor of the debate in Par
Lament. He has placed himself in dilemma
from which it is difficult to escape. Mr..
Bernal Osborne showed this in the speech we
copied Mr.. Gladstone praised the British
Commissioners who made the Washington
Treaty for their skill, and assumed all the re-
sponsbility for their conduct. He denied that
there was any ambiguity in the treaty, and yet
he maintains that the construction the Ameri-
can government gives to it is different from
that given by himself. If the meaning were so
plain, why this difference of views? No one
can doubt the desire of both countries to
secure lasting peace by carrying out
the treaty still the British Premier
asserts that the Interpretation Of it
by the American government is not
correct, and he has raised, seemingly, an
insuperabe barrier to its execution. BY
assuming that there is no ambiguity in the
treaty, and that the British government is
right in its construction of it, is to say that
the American government is not acting In !
GOOD faith. Mr.. Gladstone's first false step
for political object apparently-s leading
him into others that only tend to increase the
difficulties.
Looking, then, at the dilemma the Premier
is in, and at the fact that he shut the door
against compromise in the commencement
of the treaty negotiation by declining the
proposition to pay round sum to
cover all the claims, we do not see
government will not recede, will not withdraw
or modify its case before the Geneva arbitra-
tors, some new and acceptable proposition
must come from England, or the treaty will be
lost. 1t is not certain that our govern
| ment would accept any such PROPOSE
| ton, but if 1t should be disposed to
| do so Mr.. Gladstone could hardly stultify him
self 30 much as to take the initiative. This
question, therefore, may lie over till another
Minister takes the place Of Mr.. Gladstone, and
If the people of England desire very much to
have it settled change of Ministry may be
demanded for the purpose. Lord Derby and
Disraeli, though apparently holding similar
views to those of the present Cabinet with
regard to the American case, could plead that
they did not make the treaty, and, being un-
trammelled in that respect, might find solu-
ton Of the difficulty by some new and salts
factory nronosition IL q channa of Ministry