The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-05-04
England's Reply Unsat-
isihctoI.y.
A CONFERENCE WITH CONGRESS-.
Reverdy Johnson Picked to
Pieces.
THE TARIFF WAR in CONGRESS-


Alabama Claims-Tho English Reply
Neutrality-suspicious. ssCaso" To Be Adj
hcrcd TO.
At the Cabinet meeting to-day the most mpor-
tant action which Inns yet been taken in regard to
our difficulties with England touching the arbk
tration at Geneva was decided on. reply has
been received from the English government in
reference to the negative principle OF international
law which Mr. Fish had brought himself to be will
ing TO accept the condition OF our retreat. The
answer is so exceedingly unsatisfactory to this
government that 1t is probable there will be no
backdOwn after all, and the position assumed
by the President in the OVERWHELMINGLY, that
tho question OF consequential damages is
for the Geneva Tribunal to settle-will be insisted
upon.
! The administration is frightened at the attitude
of the people on the intended accommodation, and,
now that Great Britain has virtually rejected our
overtures, will not retreat further. The best evi-
dence that the new, or, rather, the Old policy will
be adhered to is the fact that the President no
longer relies on the Judgment OF Mr.. Fish,
| but has determined to consult with the mem
bcrs OF the Foreign Affairs committees OF Con-
gress before announcing definitely pursuing
any line Of policy. Some OF the gentlemen
composing these committees have been invited to
meet at the State Department at ten O'Clock to-
morrow to consider the situation and advise with
the government In the proper to be pursued.
The reply received to-day was in answer to Fishs
which such strong hopes of an amcabe settlement
were founded. In this answer the American Min
lister informs the State Department that Eng
land has agreed to accept the intimaton OF
this government that proposition from
her would be accepted on the basis so
often indicated in these dispatches. This intima-
ton, it will be remembered, was that we were viii
ling to withdraw our demand for compensation for
consequential damages on the ground, II Great
| Britain would agree In all cases for the future
, where we might be the aggressors, to make no
complaints claims against the United States for
any indirect, remote or consequential injuries or
losses resulting from failure to observe our neu
trail duties. The United States. by accepting the
suggestion, would gain an important concession.
This point it was believed, had been gained on the
receipt Of the answer from General Schenck Fol-
lowing it came the text OF the English proposition
but the latter turns out to he OF such character
that, in its present shape, 1t cannot be accepted.
II turns out also that England does not under
stand position, but assumes that IL was a clear
and complete withdrawal of pretensions and
the virtual abandonment OF the position we
sumed, without any guarantee that we were to
receive anything in return for such Ignominious
action on part.
The result is the course taken
by the Cabinet to-day. 1t has been
decided, In view OF the present situation OF the
| question: to submit the whole correspondence to
| the members Of the House Committee on Foreign
| Affairs and the Senate Committee on Foreign Rcla-
| tions for their opinion and guidance.
General Banks, in the interview he had with Mr.
Fish, at the instance of the House of Representa-
tivcs, was mised in regard to the intentions and
| purposes OF the Department and as he and the
others, who now invited to the Department,
entirely averse to concession or retreat there
can be little doubt as to the advice which the ad-
ministration will receive from them.
Criticisms on the Reverdy johnson Com
scquentiaI Damage Letter.
The statement of Reverdy Johnson in his letter
to John A. Peters the subject of consequential
damages, that his first intlmation that the United
States had any snch claim, any claim on their
own account, was intimated to him In speech de-
vered by Senator Sumner in the Senate on the 18th
of April 1869, when the Johnson Clarendon Treaty
was under consideration, and that until that speech
! Of Mr.. Sumner, the idea of consequential
damages had not occurred to any one, has occa-
stoned a good deal OF comment among friends Of
the administration. The letter as published in the
| HERALD to-day has been generally read, and the
statement OF Mr.. Johnson severely commented
upon as his own record Is against him. The exec
utive document printed in 1870 in the claims of the
| stntng nrito in al M
the correspondence OF Reverdy Johnson with the
State Department the Johnson-Clarcndon
Treaty. On the 25th March, 1862 Mr.. Johnson
addressed a letter TO Earl Clarendon, In which he
says that the convention negotiated between them
is in danger OF being rejected as it includes only
claims of individuals. He then says
My government believe, as | am now advised
that il has a claim OF its own upon Her Majesty's
government, because OF the consequences resulting
from premature recognition OF the Conlederates
during our late war, and from the hitting
| out OF the Alabama and other similar
vessels in Her Maesty's ports, and from
their permitted entrance into other ports to be
fitted and provisioned during their pratlcal cruise.
The existence OF such claim makes II as necessary
that It's ascertainmcnt and adjustment shall be
provided for the individual claims growing out OF
the same circumstances
Thereupon ne proposed that they sign
supplemental convention, that all these
claims should be included in the first
article OF the original convention by insert
| ing the governmental claims. The proposition
was the subject of correspondence for several
weeks. On the 10th of April Mr. Johnson sent tel
egram to Secretary Fish stating that he thought he
| could get this change In the convention. On the
18th of April the day before the treaty rejected,
| Mr.. Fish replied as f0lows:-
"As the treaty Is now before the Senate, no
! change Is deemed advisable"
Whatever merit might have been attributed to Mr..
Johnsons letter to Mr.. Peters, it is conceded is
counteracted by positive assertions on his part,
which are wholly disproved by the correspondence
referred to.
CurtOsities OF Tariff Debate In the
H0usc-The Legislative Appropriations
One of the phenomena OF American politics was