New national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1870-1874, 1872-06-13

Of settling the difficulty, and drew up Tue
supplementary article, yet hesitates now to
accept that which 1t demanded so vehe-
mently, on account of slight alteration
made by the Senate, which places the ques-
ton on broader basis, and, instead Of set
Ting merely the present concrete case be-
tween England and the United States, lays
down the rule for the settlement of all SINH
lar International differences. This conduct,
on the part of England, appears strange, yet
it is easily accounted for, and originates in
the sclfishness, the spirit of arrogance and
defiance that has always characterized the
English Government in its dealings with
other nations. 1t does not want to bind it
self to the rules that it assumes to lay down
for others. When itself a belligerent, it
claims the right to dictate their obligations
to neutrals, and to subject their merchant
men to the most onerous and vexatious regu-
lations, but, when neutral, it does not
mean to submit to the same regulations.
During our civil war, England, while pre-
tending to be neutral, had given such aid
to the rebels as TO make +" British neutrality"
trouble was taken to conceal the hope that
secession would prove successful and result
in the permanent disruption Of the Republic.
These sweet dreams evaporated, and when
the young giant who-it was anticipated
would be too much crippled ever to be again
a formidable antagonist-came out of the
contest stronger than before, the English
Government began to realize that it would
act wisely in offering us certain compensa-
ton, lest we might take reprisals in some
future day. Accordingly it has signifed its
readiness to satisfy our claims for our burned
merchantmen, but stubbornly refuses to re-
cognize those for indirect damages, because
they would probably amount to hundreds of
millions, yet cannot consent to a compromise
by which such claims would be excluded
for ever. The fact is, England wants to
reserve to herself right from which she
insists upon excluding other nations-a priv
ilege to herself, obligations for others.
We have no words to characterize the per-
fidy, the bare-faced, brazen, defiant arro-
gance, the utter disregard of justice and fair
ness which alone can actuate such course,
and We should be delighted to know the
statesman up to the task of negotiating sue
cessfully with such an antagonist, and to
learn what our Government ought to have
done under the circumstances. The claims
for indirect damages are just and rea-
sonable in themselves, and not even
those who are loudest now in their abuse
of the President, would have consented
to have them struck out from our case
yet it was hardly ever expected that
the court of arbitration would award such
damages, and what course, we ask, was left
open to our Government, when findin. itself
confronted by an antagonist utterly inaccess-
BILE to the dictates Of justice, fairness, and
common decency? Should it at once put an
end to all arbitration by insisting on the in
direct claims, and disappoint the hopes of the
whole people for final amicable arrangement
of this most disagreeable question, which for
many years has been the cause of so much
irritation, vexation, and ill-feeling? We
never heard that butting ones head against
stone walls was considered evidence Of wis.,
dom, and the concession made by giving up
part of our claims, however just, for the price
of permanent, and for all parties equally
fair and binding settlement, in our opinion,
deserves rather to be commended as an act
of wise craftsmanship than to be branded as
cowardly aud abject surrender. If Eng
land against present expectations should re-
fuse to accept our ultimatun, it would be time
for us to let the treaty slide but in that case
she will have to assume the whole response.
bility and the odium of its failure.
So much for the case itself; yet we have
one more word to say about the position
which the Tribune, alias Mr.. Horace Greeley
has taken on this subject. OF course, its
only motive for its denunciations of the Ad-
ministration can be found in its desire to in
jure General Grant, to bring him into dis
credit, to throw obstacles in his way, all for
the object of destroying his chances for re-
election and it seizes upon the Treaty as q
convenient handle. Now, however severely
we may judge such a course from the stand
point Of morality and fidelity to principle, we
admit that it is perfectly legitimate and in
keeping with long-established party usage,
provided it is limited to domestic affairs.
But the case is entirely changed when the
question is an International one, neither be-
tween Grant and Greeley nor between Re-
publicans and Liberals, but between the
people Of the United States, irrespective of
parties, and Great Britain. The Tribune,
alias Mr.. Horace Greeley, knows how
eagerly every line on this Alabama affair is
read and discussed ON either side of the ocean,
nevertheless it urges England on in her per-
verseness and arrogance by virtually saying:
"Y on see what set of jackasses we have at
the head of our Government; keep on bully
ing and defying them until you frighten
them into unconditional surrender, and
the more disgraceful the surrender the
more thankful we shall be to you, since it
will add a hundred per cent. to the prospects
Of our candidate" If, on the contrary, the
Treaty should turn out failure in conse-
quence of the infatuation Of the English Gov
which the Tribune has so tenderly
fostered, the result would be even more well |