The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-02-22

(,
aud he Gdptce or my honorable Jriend Is that zoe
should CONFESS this failure; that should haze
Jessed IL last year at Washington ana he seems 10
recommend US TO CONFESS II nO,c.
GOD HELP Us
Has my honorable friend thought for moment Of
tue position IN which ne proposes 10 place the
country When were these complaints made by
American In the year 1852 and IN every subsequent
deny ner right 10 contend-that we have failed In
our International duty. In every one OF those years.
an i0 ac a We Been o.
the contrary, that We have not failed In odr inter-
national duty. direct and dismetrical difference
the two governments. That Numerically opposite
conviction was tested by the most elaborate argu.
anywhere contains the record. the character Of
each country was pledged 10 the bona ndes Of the
convictions which were thus declared ana can
promise the good name and the ancient honor Of
THIS country than that, after haUing FOR ten years
done our best aoithout apor ana soithout prejudice
during the lchoe of the secession lrdr, to perform
ece'y International duty howeuer diDicuu, 10 both
United States, zoe should loto come J0r,cdrd ana
CONFESS that al our declarations scere a mere
blind, pretert ana .falseh0od, reS0rfed 10 IN
the hope or Grading a Just claim, AND that now.
beng reduced the last OF Devices and having
to the United states what Is termed gross sum or
payment, or what you ike TO call It. as ful COM
pensati0n In order to escape from our dif1cultles.
THE CONFEDERATE COTTON LOAN.
Ny honorable friend the member for Chatham (Mr.
Otway, has referred to what are known as the
give him full and complete account OF all that may
have occurred IN regard to those claims Ny honor
able friend says, In regard to them, that we ought
to come into court with clean HANDS. quite agree
that II we ever come TO the point OF Q difference
with the American government as to whether this
arDIration ought to go on or not we ought TO take
the most scrupulOus care to be certain That we ask
nothing from them that we should NOT De prepared
under the same circumstances to grant ourselves.
My honorable friend says mat cotton loan claims
were actually presented at Washington by the agent
nrftr. nnt and ftsaf fnffh
agent Is the act or the BRUSH government That the
American representatives protested against his pro.
traitor and disposed OF by MIN. NV honorable friend
VIII at once be struck BY the TACT that the Commits
sion sitting at Washington ana the American agent
there able on day and at any hour TO suOmit
TO their government the nature OF the evidence In
any case that may arise and TO OBTAIN the Judgment
OF their government upon IL. That was not the case
win The British agent. l am very lar from pro-
nOuncing any blame upon the British agent but
belleve-though nave not inquired minutey at the
Foreign ONCE ON the poInt-that uae Brush agent
nad received genera instruction to reject claims
mat dld not iaii within the period mentioned IN
that were the case, that he SHOULD think 1t
his duty to present any claim offered TO him
which appeared 70 correspond with that time. But
that agent was subordinate agent. My honorable
friend has not told US that the American Commls-
SlonerS desired that time might be given for refer
ring the matter home and Tor the Judgmenc OF the
government az home being taken upon IT, anu such
Is not the TACT; and l WIN ten my honorable friend
the British government never GAGE dtrectOnsJ0r the
presentation or the cotton loan Ga ms IN question:
got rid OF In moment and for this reason, that I'M
ger the general name OF cotton loan claims are
italy different The great bulk Of these claims are,
believe simply OF tins natures they are instru-
onasa s% ~ wns @ money or
,sose upon sns ns
was appropriated or DESTROYED by the American
government, or was supposed to have been so,
claims. However, the only act taken advlsedly Dy
the British government on the cotton loan claims
mas been .nls. After considering with very detect
i've information the various forms whicn those cot
ton loan claims might assume, we came to the con-
cluslon That there mighs be cases IA which those
bonds had been actually exchanged for particular
speclhed parcels OF cotton, and In our Wow In
That they would cease to be In reality and In
substance cotton loan claims and would become
claims Tor loss oil property that particular cotton
should have been appropriated or destroyed. With
that reservation as to bonds winch had been con.
vered into visible property, the decision OF Her
Majestv's government although come to, l believe,
alter TINS transaction at Washington had occurred,
tanned 0y US before the arbitrator aud ought not
be presented by us to him Tor arbitration.
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TREATY.
Nothing has been said trust, to imply for one
moment tnat we in any way question the title OF
WHICH they they caoo 70
1t Ia clear and unambtgu0us, but clear and imam
6iguoas against gains usmI they venture to do that,
establish what we contend 10 De the unambiguous
construction OF the treaty with the protocols. They
are as much at liberty as we are. We mention
what Is our contention In this controversy; II re-
mains to DO seen whether the American govern
ment agree to that not; and their right 10 hold
their own language and form their own opinion Is
as sacred as ours. My honorable friend mr. Olway)
says nat the waole strength OF our case depends on
not understand BY what logical process he arrives
a. that conclusion. 1 admit That II 1t could Oe
treaty we should still be able to Plead II we could
support 1t by reasonable evidence the doctrine OF
Intention. The doctrine or the meaning OF the
thing; the doctrine OF the intention OF
the parties Is another stated distinctly last night
that we adhered to the doctrine OF the meaning Of
the words We don't pronounce the doctrine Of
the intention Of tine parties. we shdH 0ius aohat zoe
think IS denl0nstrattoe evidence or The doctrine OF
ana hope distinctly ana c0nclusiuelv 0ppedl-to
me meaning or the CORDS embodied In the Eastrt-
nlent
TIE COMPETENCY OF AN ARBITRATOR
Only one other remark would make. My hon.
orabe friend seems to suppose that every question
TO the scope OF arbitration ought OF necessity to
be settled beforehand. That Is not so. The ground
on when asr Maesys government proceed In re-
ground that we think the indirect losses TO
be beyond the scope OF the arbitration.
OF arbitration than the raising OF questions before
tine arbitrator himself as to the scope OF his own
duties The decision in the first instance on the
scope or the arbitration rests with the arbilrator
himselfi but his authority Is not final The United
states themselves nave been the irst-I do not
as compared with us-to have declared aud acted,
on an Important former occasion, upon the right Of
one or the parties to withdraw from and decline to
accept The result of arbitration. Well, we might
nave taken that course; Dut wOuia 1t have been an
honorable none, onef Very often Il may be convenient to
refer to the arbitrator himself the question OF the
scope VI the reference; 1t Is not worth while not to
do SO. We haze at this moment certain questions
pending IN regard to ships In Uhich zoe BE-
tteus thdt IN all probability the arbitrator
eotA % called upon 70 decide, as IN the
case or the cotton toan sohether certain questions
are within me scope or the arbitration. 1t Is not
the simple question OF these indirect claims being
US to act as as We nave done, but that question
combined with the enormous magnitude or the
lions which has induced us to think that 1t would
be far more honorable. frank ana friendly TO the
United States TO declare at once that the
whole OF this matter is In our view, unit
for arbitration and Is, In fact, barred
from this arbitration, than to have waited,
and afterwards taken some step that might have
US liable to the repr0ach OF having per-
mitted them to act In ignorance OF our view and
our tnten ton.