Orleans County monitor. [volume] (Barton, Vt.) 1872-1953, 1872-03-04
THE ENGLISH TREATY.

Mr.. Thomas Hughes is so frank "a
friend to the United States, and the
feeling for him In this country so kind,
that his late letter to the Tribune upon
the treaty difficulty may be considered
as the view of what may be called the
American party in England. Mr.. Hughes
says in substance that there was certain
understanding in regard to the treaty,
which we have violated in the presenta-
ton of our case under the treaty. The
understanding, he says, was that there
was to be no claim for indirect losses or
constructive damages. We have heard
the same assertion made by others there
was ''an understanding that certain
points were not to be included. but that
we were to be satisfied with an apology,
with the concession of certain principles,
and with the payment of actual and
proved losses. But if there was such
an understanding, who were the parties
connected whit Where is the record
of it ? Mr.. Hughes really accuses the
United States Government of the utmost
dishonor.
No treaty of which the cardinal con-
dition is the reference of disputed points
to an arbitration can be interpreted by
what is vaguely called a tacit under
standing. The essential understanding
between the negotiator, is recorded, as
it was in this case. When national par
ties to an ordinary treaty differ as to the
significance, they will very properly often
refer it to friendly adjucation. But
when the treaty itself provides for such
settlement, there is no question left
except that of accepting the award of
the arbitration. In the case of the Trea-
ty of Washington, the claim of "an un-
derstanding' must be reiinquished, be-
cause the very question at issue was not
left to understanding. The American
case, as we showed last week has always
been the same. 1t has always been
composed of two claims, for direct and
indirect losses In the very protocol to
which Mr. Hughes refers it is stated that
the right to demand the indirect losses
was not waived if the amicable settle
ment was not made. That amicable
settlement was an apology and the pay
ment of a gross sum-and England de-
clined it, That having failed, the right
to claim indirect losses being resumed,
the treaty negotiated, by which every
question and claim were referred to the
tribunal.
Mr. Hughes quotes the words of the
treaty as sustaining the English view Of
the case, but he must be aware that the
meaning of the treaty can not be finally
settled by either of the parties. 1.-THE
high contracting parties agree that al
the said claims, growing out of acts com
mitted by the aforesaid vessels, shall be
referred to the tribunal of arbitration.
And the means, says Mr.. Hughes, the
claims arising from vessels actually anc
unlawfully seized and destroyed. Blu
why are not the expenses of pursuit, anC
the enhanced payments of insurance
and the prolongation of the war to b.
considered '.as growing out of acts com
mitted bv the aforesaid vessels % Be
cause every body knows that they wer'
not meant, says Mr.. Hughes. But h
must excuse us. We do not know it il
this country, and it is the very question
that we have referred to Geneva. no
England.
1t is very evident why the Englisl
people and Mr.. Gladstone should be an
) noyed by this view of the subject. The.
had laughed at the idea of consequen
tial damages as growing out of tn
Queens proclamation according bellig
, erent rights to the rebels. And whe
General Grant stated that each natio
. must decide for itself when to recogniz
: belligerency, they undoubtedly consid
: cred the remark as remuneration of on
claims. But the claim of indirect los
remained. 1t was not, however, base
on the proclamation, but upon the act
of ''the aforesaid vessels" And tn
, American concession in the treaty wa
the reference of both the indirect and d
rect claims to tribunal which Nigh
award damages for neither. This is
point which Mr.. Hughes and his fellow
Englishman fail to see. The Unite
States said that deep and universal a
!, was the national sense of injury, an
great as was the possible amount of tn
claims they might prefer, yet, to hes
! bitterness of feeling and to avoid tn
chance of war, they would, in considers
ton of the expressions of regret, and {
the retroactive principles of internal Law
. leave the entire pecuniary question t
:, the tribunal Should that tribunal nc
! award the United States single dollar
! they will abide by the treaty which COZ
tains the regret and the improved Law
!, Mr.. Gladstone knows that the pride
Englishmen is touched by the suppos
ton that they could possibly have le
the question of payment of an incalcul;
BILE sum to the decision of five gentleme
at Geneva. But that he should insis
;. that England should disregard the tire;
: ty if her own view of it is not conceale
= in advance of the arbitration for whic
the treaty provides, is position so sill
!, gular and untenable that we must e,
: pect it to be abandoned Why shoul
: the United States accept the Englis
! theory of the treaty, and England III
: accept that of the United States? "
think that it covers indirect losses. En-.
land thinks that it does not Gene,
must decide. If England declines, 81
e tears the treaty.
s To AVOID BEING CHEATED.-It is sa