The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-05-23

and the appeals of the Secretary of State the
republican Senators are answering to the
party whip, and the mouths of several of those
known to have been opposed to the ratification
of the supplemental article are now said to be
Theoretically sealed.
Saving the treaty at all hazards Is the
object of Mr.. Fish. He is ready to sac
rifce public honor, national pride, and
even 70 mako the government contemplate in
the eyes of the world rather than give up his
hobby. Having made this tho great question
Of his official term in the State Department, to
bring himself popularity and fame, and
il being almost the only important
one he has touched since he be-
came Secretary, he is intent on succeeding
in his purpose, whatever may be the conse-
quences TO the country. His amour propre is
aroused. His own reputation is the first con-
sideration. No doubt he has endeavored to
persuade the President that the reputation of
the administration is at stake, and that the
Presidents chance of reelection will depend in
a measure upon saving the treaty, and, per-
haps, has been successful in that; but really
his object was to honor himself in the first
place, and is now to save himself from the
charge of inconsistency and weakness. This
is natural in such u proud and weak
man. But is the honor Of the republic
to be sacrificed to crafty one man2
Il the pride Of the nation to be humbled that
this Cabinet officer may save his credit, and
that it may be said he made the treaty and
forced it through? That really is tho issue
just now, though covered up by the pretence
that the treaty is a valuable one for us and
necessary to preserve peace. The people care
little about the treaty. The administration
has Numbered so much over it that the con-
summation Of it now would not win popular
favor; besides, there is general and we'll
founded opinion that under present circun-
stances it would not bring harmony.
The remarks Of the Pal Hal Gazette on the
effort to save tho treaty. in it's issue of Monday
evening, which came as special cable
despatch to us and was published in the
HERALD yesterday, are full Of good sense and
meaning. ''The whole drift of public feeling
and opinion in England" it remarks, 'justi-
fies us in saying that the worst thing to do is
to save it. Saving the treaty means offence
and humiliaton-to America or to England,
or to both nations 1t means the renewal and
not the abatement of the ill-feeling it was
intended to allay. How to save the
treaty means who shall 'eat the leek, or
whether some means cannot be invented
whereby both parties shall agree to eat it in
al f,tb oIu To
the fact that the American papers exclaim
against the adoption of the supplemental
treaty aud express the opinion that its accept
ance would be discreditable and dangerous it
goes on to shy that "both peoples would be
pacified and content at once if the treaty and
the negotiations connected with it were
dropped as an irremediable blunder, for
which the two governments are alone to
blame. This is the proper fate of the treaty,
and the only safe and peaceful way of dis
posing of it." We have expressed the same
views with regard to the attempt to patch
the treaty after it became a subject of dispute
and its harm onizing influence was lost To
mend it now in the way proposed would leave
feeling of dissatisfaction and irritation, in
America at least, and, perhaps, in England
also, though this country only would surren-
der anything by the adoption of the
supplemental treaty. If we withdraw
the claim for consequential damages,
as proposed in the supplemental treaty, the
whole question will be surrendered, however
much this may be covered up by honeyed
words or diplomatic trickery. No treaty that
is not explicit and frank in its terms and
meaning, or that conveys the impression Of
overreaching, can produce harmony between
the two nations. Peace and friendship can
not be perpetuated by patchwork of ex-
pedients.
The Edinburg Rerie,o Of April, in an exhaus-
tive article on "The Claims of the United
States" takes much the same view of the
treaty. 1t says The language of the
treaty is as obscure and involved as the notions
it seems intended to convey. 1t is alike remote
from the language of diplomacy and the Ian
guage of law, and in some articles the express
sions used mean, or may mean, the exact reverse
of what they are intended to convey" But the
writer is not satisfied with attacking the
treaty for its ambiguity, and, consequently,
for the possible fruitful source of
future trouble that lies in that-he
exposes the inconvenience and even danger in
the new law it embodies with regard to neu-
trails. 'Be the authors Of this document who
they may" the article says, 1--WE are convinced
that they misconceived the fundamental prin-
ciples of law recognized by the jurisprudence
both of America and England, and that they
would substitute for them rules and obligations
which would render the position Of neutrals
in time of war absolutely intolerable,
and would compel them in preference
to resort to war;" Making new law
for neutrals, or one more stringent than