New-York tribune., 1872-02-14
Mr. HUGHESS LETTER.

TRIBUNE from MT. In0nlis Hugueo'
of Parliament for FrOme, in when ne gives '
the impression created in the minds OF ihoeih-
gent and candid Englishmen by the reao'ns
of the Case which our Government mas pre-
serted at the Geneva Conference. we lore
bore to accompany this letter by any remarks
of our own, preferring to allow so temperate
and courteous a statement of English OPINION
to 60 before the American public wlehou'
immediate contradiction or argument. MI
Hughes has earned the right to speak
for England to America with tlat au-
thority which comes from perfect cahdor
and admitted friendliness. If he d'sagreeS
with us or disapprOves our action, we kho"
at least that his opposition arises from no un-
worthy motives, and is as free from the lniiu-
cnce of national prejudice as that of any man
can be- When we see, therefore, that upon
the apparently evident construction OF the
Treaty and Protocol of Washington we are
compelled utterly to dissent both from the
premises and the conclusions of one OF the
most intelligent and liberal friends that Amer
lea and American institutions possess in En-
gland, we can see how impossible it is for any
of lis to be judges in oilr own cause, and how
necessary is some court of resort, both for
which could never otherwise be determined.
The proof OF this Is in MIR. Hughess use
of the language of the Protocol, when our
Commissioners said that, in the hope OF an
"amicable settlement, no estimate was made
"of the indirect losses-without prejudice,
"however, to the right to indcmnltcation on
"tbcir account in the event of no such set
element being made" He takes these words,
which form the strongest buttresS OF the
American Case, as ga specific waiver OF lEdI-
erect or constructive damages" for he regards
the Treaty which followed this Protocol as the
amicable settlement referred to. But, in fact,
This Treaty was the explicit acknowledgment
of both nations that they were unable OF
tbemselves to come to an amicabe settle
ment II was an agrecpent on points OF disa-
greement, the most important OF which was this
very question of consequential damages. Inc
Arbitration of Geneva is the living witness OF
that failure to agree. II the BlltlSh ana
American Commissioners could have come TO
an understanding in Washington, by which a
definite sum should be paid in full liquidation
of all demands, this, taken III connection with
the British expression of regret, would have
ended the matter, and the dispute could have
passed into history on the day OF the
ratification. Had this been done, both sides
| would have made some concessions from their
former posiion. But each was SO sure OF the
strength of its case, and possibly so much
hampered by political exigencies, that they
both preferred to throw upon Board of i'm
partial Arbtrators the duty of putting both in
the wrong and doing equal justice between
them. Having agreed in this, each side pre-
4 ,frlxr H.
ing of course all claims within the general
scope of the controversy, not expressly ex-
| cluded by the LANGUAGE OF the Treaty
! Mr.. Hughes makes a statement which will
! astonish those Americans who imagined that
we had made enormous concessions to En-
gland in cOnsenting to those important mOdlfi-
| cations of international law embodied IN the
Treaty. He seems to think the sacrifice was
altogether on the side of England. He says !:
You have obtained an expression of regret
from England, and modification of the
90 rules of international law, expressly agreed
"to by us for the purpose of bringing the case
&" of the Alabama within the cOgnizance of
"the tribunal of arbitration, and you
have given absolutely nothing in return"
On the contrary, we think if Mr. Hughes will
consult the most eminent publicsts in and out
unanimous opinion to be that England, of all
nations, will be the greatest gamer by the
adoption of these new and salutary rules. The
American people assented to them in the in
terests of general peace and of humanity, and
not because they were to receive any especial
benefit from them. But to a vast commercial
power like Great Britain their adoption was a
decided and lasting advantage.
The painful anxiety of Mr.. Hughes and
| his friends 1--WE use his own wOrds) in regard
to the Board OF Arbitration is feeling with
which it is difficult to sympathize We have
| hitherto heard no doubts expressed as to the
intelligence and fairness of the eminent
diplOmatists and lawyers who have been
appointed to hear and determine the merits of
| this controversy. But in Mr.. Hughess letter
! there is curious nervousness in regard to
both these qualities. would you risk it,"
he SAYS, "if you were in orr place' Here is a
reference practically to three persons, none
"Of whom speak our language, one of whom
| "is known to be a very ardent republican"
| We cannot help reminding Mr.. Hughes that
| they probably speak American worse than
they do English, and that two of them are
mOnarchists. He assumes that Lord COckburn
and Mr. Adams are to be partisans and not
judges. In behalf of our own Commissioner,
we beg leave to doubt this. We can see no
justification for the fear everywhere displayed
in England that if they 90 into this Arbitra-
tOn they will be betrayed by the Board. If
governments once begin to say that they will
submit to no arbitration except in cases where
they are sure of the result, the very idea of
such "a tribunal becomes absurd.
1t is probable that the English Ministry will
not fnllnw In fhcIr nlIlcill ncfinn the nnfh in