The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-06-08


tion or the Difficulty boon Reached
If we are to Judge from the proceedings in
the House of Lords on Thursday o solution
has been found for the difficulty relative to our
claim for indirect damages under the Treaty
of Washington Earl Granville read letter
from Mr.. Schenck, the American Minister
stating that the supplemental article adopted
by the Senate is clearly sufficient to exclude
the indirect claims, and authorizing the state
ment to be made, as coming from Washington,
that the article makes final settlement OF the
disputed question regarding such claims.
Believing this announcement, the Lords re-
ceived it with cheers. Earl Derby, the leader
of the opposition, Immediately rose and said
this put new face on the matter and thought
the debate ought to close. This was also re-
ceived with cheers. Earl Granville seemed to
qualify his statement, however, by saying
that the American case, rs prepared for the
Geneva arbitrators, remained unaltered,
though the acceptance Of the supplemental
article to the treaty effectually disposed
OF the indirect claims. The Peers were so
satisfied with the statement that Earl Russell
withdrew his motion. for on address to the
Queen calling upon Her Majesty to refuse to go
to arbitration before the Geneva Board. Pre-
vious to these proceedings Earl Derby read
letter from Sir Stafford Northcote, one Of the
Commissioners who made the treaty, stating
positively that the British Commissioners did
understand promise was given by the Ameri-
can Commissioners that the claim for indirect
damages would be withdrawn.
The conflicting statements Of Sir Stafford
Northcote and Mr.. Fish, as to whether there
was any understanding or not that the claim
for indirect damages was to be withdrawn, are
of less consequence now than the prospect of
q settlement by the new arrangement proposed
by the supplemental article to the treaty Still
that will remain a curious feature in the history
of this diplomatic imbroglio Somebody's
memory must have been defective, to use the
mildest sort Of explanation, of these conflicting
statements. Our government has maintain
ed. all along that its purpose was to
present claim for consequential damages,
and that the British Commissioners
must have known that. The protocol
in which this matter was presented has been
quoted to show this purpose. But now Sir
Stafford Northcote asserts positively that there
was an understanding that the claim made in
the protocol was to be withdrawn. 1t seems
strange that such an important matter should
have been left SO ambiguous and subject to
dispute The truth is, no doubt, that there
was want Of directness and plain dealing on
both sides. In the anxiety to make treaty
and to get the credit for settling the difficult
ties between the two countries, each side
appeared to be afraid Of raising obstacles.
Both compromised on a want of explicitness
and ambiguity, and trusted to luck. The
British Commissioners looked at the treaty
from their own point of view, while shutting
their eyes to the reverse side, and the Ameri-
can Commissioners did the same. Hence arose
the misunderstanding. We can hardly sup
pose there was either deception practised or
an insidious attempt to overreach each other.
Over anxiety, bordering on tmidity, led to
want Of frankness, and, as a consequence, the
treaty was bungled. This we think, explains
the conflicting views and statements of Sir
Stafford Northcote and MIR. Fish.
But has the difficulty with regard to the
claims for indirect damages been brought to
solution? The action in the House of Lords
creates the impression that it has. At the
same time our Washington dispatches reiter-
ate the assertion that no modification will be
made in the supplemental amendatory article
acted upon by the Senate-that no further con-
cessions will be made to the British govern
ment or for the sake Of saving the treaty. In
deed, the assurance comes from high quarters
that dissatisfaction is expressed at the explana-
tory action Of General Schenck in helping
Gladstone out of his difficulty, and it is
said that the government at Washington
has become Indifferent as to the fate of the
treaty. There is peculiar State Department
odor in this pretended frmness and indiffer-
ence. In these same dispatches we learn,
however, that any written or other assurance
the British government may require Of the alb
solute withdrawal of indirect claims in man.
ner less formal than would require the further
action of the Senate, would be, if it had not
already been, furnished through Mr.. Schenck,
our Minister at London We suppose, there
fore, that the satisfactory assurance had been
given in the letter from Mr.. Schenck which
Lord Granville read in the House of Lords,
which created SO much JOY among their Lord
ships, and which caused the bellgerent and
waspish Earl Russell to withdraw his motion
of address to the Queen. The government at
Washington certainly instructed Mr.. Schenck
to give this assurance, and it is reasonable to
infer that the very language of his letter to
Earl Granville was supplied from and carefully
weighed by the administration.
We are told that our government did not
think that even this would be satisfactory to
the British Cabinet That we suspect, is
mere pretence. The administration did, we