The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1872-03-04

| l1s that the difficulty which has arisen is as
/ real as Il is apparent. If the American case
enbodies the serious pretensions Of the
United States-which Is Mr.. Snaliey's argu-
ment-ft is serious; we ourselves are seri-
Gus and, as any hope Of q successful issue
from the treaty of Washington must arise
from the persuasion that there is large
g bogus" element in the one case or the
other, hope dies away.
| There are two comments on orr relations
| with the United States which may be advan-
| tageously made. DIR. Snalley proves, what
we: had no difficulty in believing beforehand,
that the Federal Government has not pro-
pounded case without being able to justify
! it to themselves. They claim indirect dam
ages because they never gave them up. Our
| first remark-and we make it in perfect frank
ness, in order that it may be met and ex-
plained-is that, whereas we never dreamed
that these indirect claims were still preferred
until the publication of the American case
awoke us to the reality, we had told all the
world that they were abandoned. The dis
cllssion in the House of Lords on Lord Rus
selps motion last June was not held in q
corner; the American Minister was present;
the debate was reported the morning
after it occurred, and special attention
was, by fortunate accident, directed
to the statement of the Foreign Minister
| that the indirect claims were abandoned un-
der the treaty of Washington. Yet nothing
was said to disabuse us of our error. Mr..
Slnalley tells us that when he went to the
United States last summer he naturally car
rled with him the English view, and "said,
among other things, that although English
men considered they had made great conces-
sions, they found compensation for them in
the abandonment of the American claim on
account of the hasty recognition of rebel bel
Ggerency." BY the next post came letter
from Dir. Sumner saying that Mr. Smalley
was mistaken. The States had abandoned
nothing. eve have full right under the
treaty to claim all have ever claimed" We
do not blame Mr.. Smalley for not having
come back to tell us of this extra
ordinary discovery. We refrain from i'm
putting any blame to the American Go
vernment for their reticence; but we are
justified in citing Mr.. Smalley himself as a
witness that last summer, Immediately after
the treaty was signed, we interpreted it pub
licly in q way entirely at variance with the
Interpretation fixed on it by the leading politi-
clans Of the United States, as fur as we can
discover, not publicly but privately. Our
second remark may, perhaps, partly explain
the enigma involved in the first.
We apprehend the truth to be that there Is
larger public among ourselves possessing
IN intelligent appreciation of foreign affairs
than in the United States. The external re-
Iations of the Republic are left to the manage
ment of professional politicians far more than
with us. An illustration may be found in
the fact that treaties of the gravest lmpor-
lance can be discussed by the Senate in secret
session. while we cannot tolerate secret Sit
ting even of select committee Of the House OF
Commons. We believe we may look to this
difference for an explanation Of what is other
wise so difficult of understanding. The peo-
pie of the United States really knew nothing
about the treaty beyond the broad fact that
some reference of international difficulties
had been agreed upon, and hence Mr.. Pat
terson can tell us that during the last four
months spent in the States he never heard
suggestion that indirect damages could be
claimed under the treaty, while the smaller
class of senators and officials, cited by Alr.
Slnalley, were willing to keep silence, and
permit English ministers to remain with
their misunderstanding uncorlected. The
result has of course shown the futility of the
line Of conduct they pursued. The Amerl-
can case was published, and its claims were
Immediately repudiated, We had all along
proceeded on the hypothesis that they We're
withdrawn-an hypothesis which the lam
orlage of the treaty and protocols introduce
tory to it certainly tavored==and when we
found that n different understanding was held
on the other side, we had no alternative but
to declare that the treaty set up was not the
treaty we had sanctioned, and that we could
not 90 on with the reference if it were con-
strued otherwise than as we had understood
when we consented to 1t.
MR.. GLADSTONE JUSTIFIED IN SPEAKING
STRONGLY.
From The Echo of February IS
If the spirit which anmntes this able rep
resentative of the Tribune in London per-
yaties the mind of Mr.. Fish we have yet
room to hope that the treaty will not be
dropped. Well acquainted with public opin-
ion in America, Mr.. Slnalley says that, though
included, it does not follow that the indirect
claims were to he pressed in an unfriendly
way, or that anybody dreamed they would
embarrass the arbitration. He adds: 81
don't think anybody ever expected to get
Great Zeal of money for these indirect claims"
at was we'll enough understood that the
United States would have taken six millions
sterine." Then with curious n0tree-Won-
| derful, indeed, in 'cute American journal
ist-NIr. Smalley asks, GLOW happens it thatlt
has never occurred to your Government, nor,
so far AS know, to any English journalist, to
read the American case in the light OF that
| proposition:' The answer is: "Simply be-
cause it does not admit of this reading. Inc
liability is indefinite, and to the votes OF any
three of the arbitrator is referred by tic
American case the possible liability Of Eng
land, not to sum OF six millions, but pos
sibiity which has been estimated ut sixty
times six millions. Mr.. Snallcy must see
that Mr.. Gladstone was justified in speaking
strongly of the impossbility Of such refer
encc. The logical consequence of Mir. small
ley'S letter would be an Interpolation i'll the
American case of a provision that III the pre-
sentation of all claims they dsclaimcd all lia-
hility ON the part of the British Government
for any amount exceeding six millions. The
letter is not Ineligible on any other basis.
Or Mr.. Smalley would be logical if he urged
that his Government should afiix declalT,-
ton to their case to the effect that these indi-
rect claims were only made to strengthen the
claims "generalIy known Is the Alabama
claims"; which claims could be in q few
words more strictly defined than they are in
the treaty.
| THE MEANING OF TIE TREATY.
From the Pail Mall Gazette of February 10.
Mr.. George Smallcy, in second letter to
the Times, to-day, sets himself to prove that
the American Government and people always
intended to include the .:indirect" claims
among their demands under the treaty OF
Washington. So far lis the Government was
concerned, it had really no choice. The no.
ton entertained in England that Dir. sum-
ner's now celebrated speech was an eNagSe-
| ration If American ODinion and had been re-
pudiated by the majority Of his countrymen,