New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1872-05-16
THE TREATY CORRESPONDENCE.

respOndence which accompanied tho fresi-
dents message to the Senate of the 18th, only
deepens the impression produced by the an
nouncement of the fact of the surrender OF
| the question of national claims. THE TRIBUNE
does not mean to enter into the defense OF
the American Case. We have clearly enough
| indicated our opinion of the judgment and
taste employed in the preparation and pre-
sentation of that tOO-famOus document. But
we had the right, under the Treaty, to In
| clude these national claims in our plea. 1t
was for the Geneva Arbitrators to decide
whether our construction of the Treaty was
admissible. 1T was for the people of the United
| States to Judge whether their agents fulfilled
their mandate well or i'll. 1t was not the right
of the English Government to dictate to us
| how we should conduct our Case before the
International Court. These positions are as
sumed and sustained in this correspondence
with energy and consistency. And the result
is that at the end of three months of corre-
| spondence. our Government, as If touched by
some moral paralysis, all at once, without ap-
parent cause, surrender their position. and ask
the British Cabinet to write what will be
agreeable to them. This is done, and Pres
dent Grant has sent this rescript to the Sen
| ate Tor tnelr approval.
| The stages of this extraordinary correspond
ence can be briefly stated. On the Sd of Feb
ruary, Earl Granville appears to have discov-
cred there is something objectionable in the
Case presented sixteen days before, and writes
to Gen. Schenck that Her Majesty's Govern
ment hold that it is not within the province
of the Tribunal of Arbitration to decide upon
the claims for indirect losses. He wraps this
| stiff statement in good many phrases OF
| friendship. Mr. Fish promptly answered on
| the 9th of February, reciprocating the express
sions Of good will, but insisting with cour-
teous firmness upon his former construc-
ton of the Treaty; the English Com
mssiOners had rejected the proposition
| for an amicable settlement by the payment of
| a sum in gross; they had not insisted upon
any exclusion of the indirect claims from the
arbitration these claims had always formed
part of the American demand for redress from
England the President would never have
ratified the Treaty if he had not supposed that
the agreement arrived at provided for an adj
Indication of all disputed claims by arbitra
tration. He insists, very properly, that the
only way to determine the meaning of the
Treaty is from the Treaty itself, and the inter-
the Geneva Tribunal. He refers to the ex
cited British outcry about enormous damages,
and saws that no thought of these Wis
ionary amounts has ever been entertained
by the President. The whole tendency of this
dispatch is reassuring, and even cOncliatOry.
But it seems to have encouraged Earl Gran
vile to O still ruder attack. In his note of
the Goth of March he assumes n tone of posi-
tive controversy. With equal recklessness
and discourtesy he fatty denies that these
so-called indirect claims had ever been formally
presented. Throughout long dispatch, and
much longer memorandum, he labors to prove
that the Government of the United States
have introduced into their Case claims which
they knew to be unfOunded, and excluded by
mutual understanding from the Arbitration.
He concludes with these words, which ought
| to have closed the discussion Her Majesty's
Government feel confident that they have
"laid before the President ample proof that
" the conclusion which was announced by me
con the Sd of February, and to which l need
hardly say that they adhere, cannot be
shaken
After an ultimatum like this, there was moth
| ing more to say. The answer dictated by
proper self-respect would have been a simple
restatement of the Case and appeal to
| Geneva But Mr.. Fish, morbidy anxious to
save his Treaty, wrote another long and
elaborate dispatch, going over the whole
ground, and, it is due to justice to say, COM
petely refuting the statements and reasoning
of Lord Granville. He shows that continually,
| from 1862 to the present time, the Government
of the United States has insisted upon the
| consideration of these national losses as
| an element of our cause against Eng
land He completely buries the reckless
assumption of the British Minister under mass
| of citations and evidence from English and
| American dispatches and State Papers bear
ing upon this point. lie then shows with equal
clearness, and with force which makes his
| subsequent weakness still more incredible. that
these claims were not excluded by ANYTHING
done or implicated during the sessions of the
Joint Commission in Washington. He con-
cludes by insisting upon the jurisdiction of the
Board of Arbitration as the only tribunal COM
petent to decide the question at ISSUE This
closes the written correspondence, and, thus
far. the position of our Government if not all
that we had right to require, was still suf-
fciently defensible to deserve, and no
doubt TO receive, the approval and
support of the country. But as soon as
the Geographic communications begin between
Mr. Fish and Mr.. Schenck the anxiety of each
appears to infect the other, and at every ex-
change of dispatches something Is lost, until