The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-06-17

tracing parties can have the right to demand
that they be set aside. But, apart from this
view of the question, the application for an
adjournment being one-sided only, it would
not alone be within the province of the Court,
but it would become its duty to inquire
whether the request is made in good faith, and
whether its concession would be equitable.
England asks a postponement in order to
enable her to come to an amicable arrangement
with the United States on the subject of ndi-
rect claims. 1t is on record, and should be
placed within the knowledge of the Court, that
the American government have declared that
they will make no deviation from the supple
mental article as approved by the Senate, and
will enter into no further argument or negotia-
ton in relation to such article. 1t rests with
England, therefore, to decide whether she will
accept the supplemental article as it is or
will reject it. On what ground does
she ask an adjournment Of the Court
Will she in eight months time be pre-
pared to accept what she now rejects? If
not, then the postponement she requests
or demands can have no other object than
profitless and irritating waste of time is I'M
just to the other contracting party, and should
be denied by the Court.
There is another point which seems to COM
plicate this already perplexing question. The
American argument, voluminous and elabo-
rate. is already before the Court, and It's recep-
ton has been noted on the minutes 1t isnow
the property Of the Judges It must necessa-
rily embrace in its scope the whole question of
our indirect claims, and hence these claims
are now in reality in argument before
the tribunal and must be considered
The failure Of the supplemental article,
through the unfortunate objection of Eng
land to the verbal amendments of the Senate
has left the American case precisely as it was
before any exception was taken by England to
the indirect claims embraced therein, and be-
fore any attempt at compromise was made
The argument of the American counsel, there
fore, could not fail to cover the whole subject
Of indirect claims, and hence o withdrawal of
such claims now would necessitate also the
withdrawal and reconstruction Of the American
argument The question whether an argument
already de jure made before the Court can be
withdrawn, will be another Of the delicate
points to which the singular action Of England
must give rise. At present it seems to
men of common sense that the position
of the English government is full of con-
tradictions and difficulties. If England is
properly in Court she is bound to
obey the Judgment of the tribunal on
the question she has raised in regard to
postponement as well as on all other issues.
Should the decision be adverse to her wishes,
then she appears at once before the Judges as
a respondent to the argument based on the
indirect claims Can she honorably make the
plea for postponement and then retire from
the Court because its judgment is given
against her? 1t is evident that in reject
ing the Supplemental Treaty as amended
by the United States Senate the English Cabi-
net have committed fatal blunder, and it
seems inevitable now that the result of the
error must be the withdrawal of the British
case from the Geneva Court and the destruc-
ton by the English government of treaty Of
their own seeking and their own making.