Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1872-05-07
woRCEsT ER
TUESDAY. MAY =, 1879.



1t is still possible, Iand some think quite prob
able, that the treaty with Great Britain viii be
failure. The conciliatory overture made TO
the British government, appears to be misunder-
stood or misconstrucd, in England; and as our
government can 90 no further in that direction,
the treaty will fail if the English ministry shall
persist in its unreasonable treatment OF the
question. We can not believe, at present, that
Mr. Gladstone and his associates will take the
responsibility Of refusing 10 accept such set
Element Of the indirect claims question as has
been suggested by the last communication Of
our government TO Mr.. Schenck. But they do
not make a frank answer 10 that communica-
ton; and, while it suggests nothing TO which
they can not easily agree, if they really mean
what they profess to mean, they decline 10
make the formal agreement required.
1t has never been supposed that the claims
for indirect damages would be sustained by the
Geneva conference 1t has been expected that
the arbtrators would reject them, and thus
formally establish an important point, namely,
that such claims must not be sanctioned by in
ternational law. Such conclusion of the mat
ter was what our government desired, for, in the
luthlts We suai bN ial luolN litiulS Ahdi any
other civilized nation TO have such claims urged
against MS. In the last communication to Mr..
Schenck the actual meaning and expectation
of our government was fully explained, with
the belief that the British government would
accept the explanation aud allow the arbitration
10 so forward. A reply sent by telegraph dis
appoints this hope. The English ministers are
willing to agree that England shall never de-
mand such damages of the United States, under
any circumstances; but they do not yet consent
to have the question 90 to the arbitrator, and
propose a formal withdrawal OF the claim for
consequential damages. Our government de.
clines to accept this proposition, and dispatch
to this effect has been sent to Mr.. Schenck.
1t VIII be seen that the disagreement, as the
case now stands, relates entirely to the form in
which the illegality of claims for consequential
damages shall be declared, and that the English
ministers have really no good reason for per-
sisting in their objection to our case as il now
stands, Probably the question would be set
tied AT once, if the negotiators, in both coun-
tries, were not embarrassed by the unscrupu-
lous istrigues aud Misrepresentation bipartisan
hostility. In England and the United States,
the leaders and organs of the parties opposed
10 the existing administrations, lie in wait TO
attack the parties in power; and their principal
weapons are lalsehood, Misrepresentation, and
furious appeals to blind prejudice or false senti-
ment. In this country, as soon as it was under
stood that some concihatory proposition had
been made TO Great Britain, in order to save the
treaty, the New York Tribune, the New York
World iisp fbprYa 10 ebo
vehemently and accuse the administration of
can unconditional surrender TO Great Britain y
and, of course, the American Eagle was ordered
to show his claws. These journals were ready
10 sacrifice truth, justice, honor, and the welfare
of the country, to their partisan desire to injure
General Grant. A similar partizau influence Is
at work, in England, against the Gladstone min
istry. OF course, the negotiation is much en-
barrassed.
The history of this case, from the beginning,
shows clearly that MIR. Fish is not the most
suitable man in the country to be secretary of
state. He has mismanaged this indirect claims
question in a sad way, and without seeming to
understand what was required Of him. If, as
be now says, he did not expect nor intend to Sc
cure an award of damages, but, on the other
hand, did expect to have the claim rejected, and
desired this in order to have the illegally of
such claims established formally by an interna.
tional tribunal, he should have put this expla-
nation in the case" or, at least, should have
taken pans to have distinct understanding on
this point with the English negotiators If he
did not mean this, at first, the claim should have
been excluded from the case, for il
really had no business there Neverthe-
less, bis failure TO do'his work in the |
best manner, can not excuse the course pursued, |
in regard to the matter by Mr.. Gladstone and |
Earl Granville. They were capable of under |
standing that the indirect claim must neces-
sarily mean something very different from the
recovery ofdamages, if it meant anything; and
they had no sufficient reason for using il as a
justification for what has been said and done in
England, in regard TO the matter Moreover,
they have allowed the presentation Of claims to
the commission at Washington, which were il
legal, and every way improper, such as the rebel
cotton bonds and other matters of that kind. /
OF course, these claims have been rejected; but.
having allowed them to be presented, the Eng
lish ministers should have had the grace to
leave our case to the arbitrator, without |
objecting to any part of it.