The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1872-06-24

piibSiPiO thot SloiIho iOA ASASsS Va
indirect losses should not be admitted
as result of the failure to observe the
the mutual obligations 80 far as to de-
clare that it will serve to guide both
Governments in their relations with
each other. Now, therefore, in considera-
ton thereof, the President Of the United
States, by and with the consent of the
Senate thereof, consents that he will
make no claims on the part OF the Uni
ted States in respect to indirect losses as
aforesaid before the Tribunal OF Arbi-
tration at Geneva
You will without delay inform Lord
Granville that in pursuance OF the
action of the Senate the President will
negotiate a new article in the terms and
to the effect OF the foregoing. You
will also say to him that the two bouses
OF Congress have passed a concurrent
resolution to adjourn sine die on the
29th inst. and that treaty embodying
the article must be presented to the
Senate and receive its approval. 1t is
important therefore that authority will
be speedily given TO her Majestys
Minister here to sign the convention if
the British Government conclude to
enter into the agreement.
In telegram dated May 2Sth, Min
lister Schenck informs Secretary Fish
that he communicated his telegram to
Lord Granville, who submitted it to
the British Cabinet, who took it under
long consideration, and replied as
follows: Her Msjestys Government
are of the opinion that the definition
by the Senate Of the principle which
both Governments are prepared to
adopt for the future is 80 vague that it
is impossible to state to what 1t is or is
not applicable, and they believe that it
will only lead to future misunderstand'
ing. They prefer the article as they
had drafted it, but have no objection to
accept the article in the form presented
to the Senate, with substitution Of the
words "of like notice" for the words
"for remote or indirect laws" and the
substitution OF the words such want
Of due diligence on the part Of q neu'
trail for the words "tbe failure to OBJ
serve neutral obligations.
Here follows long telegraphic cor
respondence between Messrs. Schenck
and Fish embracing also the views Of
the British Cabinet on the question
then pending.
Mr.. Fish telegraphed Mr.. Schenck
on the 2Sth of May that this Govern.
ment declines to agree TO the proposed
altering OF the supplemental article.
The establishment OF the principle en-
bodied therein has been it's object in
adhering to the presentation Of the
indirect claims and its recognition is the
inducement for not presenting them
before the tribunal.
In the course Of the correspondence
which took place in relation to the un-
derstanding of the treaty together with
the objections raised by the British
Government and amendatory Of the
proposal heretofore made by them, Mr..
Fish telegraphed Mr.. Schenck, on May
20: 1--WE cannot understand the objec.
tions which Lord Granville raises; he
raises new objections, but suggests
nothing in the direction of an agree
ment. Criticism and objections with
ou suggestions, lead to no results and
do not give assurance OF desire to
harmonic differing views. The nature
of Lord Granville's notes seem to as
sume that the Senate and this Govern
ment are to accept what Great Britain
may have suggested. Our views are
very different
Mr.. Fish, in his correspondence,
urged prompt action by the British
Government in negotiating the add.
tionsl article, so that it might be signed
by Sir Edward Thornton and himself
and sent to England in time to receive
the Royal approval and thence be dis
patched to Geneva in time for the meet.
ing OF the tribunal on the 18th Of June,
but it was met by Lord Granville with
a new proposition and the remark that
if the proposed amendment was agreed
to it would give rise to new complica-
tions requiring new treaty to explain
them.
On June lst Mr.. Fish telegraphed
to Minister Schenck that the article OF
the treaty requires written arguments
to be presented by the 18th Of June,
and that the adjournment OF the tribu-
nal without amending that article
would practically amount to a discon-
til Uance, and that the artical can only
be amended by 3 new treaty.
Lord Granville, in a communication
to Mr.. Schenck, said that the British
was willing to concur in
the joint application to the Tribunal OF
Arbitration at once to adjourn the pro-
ceedings OF the arbitration, which they
are advised it is within the competence
OF the arbitertors to do, on such sppli-
cation, without new treaty.
Secretary Fish telegrsphed to General
Schenck, confidentialIy, June 2: I'VE
concur in the opinion that the arbitra-
tors have the power to adjourn either
on their motion or on the motion Of
either party. II arguments be put in
by both sides on the 18th, and Great
Britain moves for adjournment, this
will concur" The object
of the British Government was to gain
time in order TO complete negotiations
for an additional article, with regard to
the exclusion OF the claim for indirect
losses. The British Government, with
this view, proposed joint application
for an adjournment Of the tribunal for
perid OF eight months.
In declining the proposition Mr. Fish
says:
"In the opinion Of this Government
the arbitrstors have power to adjourn
either on their own motion or on that Of
either party, and that il the argument
be put in on both sides by the 18th and
Great Britain asks for adjournment We