The Tipton advertiser. [volume] (Tipton, Cedar Co., Iowa) 1856-1962, 1872-05-23


A very easy analysis Of the supple
mentary article to the Treaty Of
Washington shows . division Of the
question ut issue between the two
governments, and that each part Of
the question 10 disposed Of without
any new settlement Of international
law whstever. The adjustment is one
Of simple temporary policy and touch
es NO principle, but avoids touching
any. On that part of the question
which has lately been before both
countries-Werc indirect or national
claims part of the American case?-
il leaves each government to retain
its own opinion. The United States,
to be sure, consents to forcgo the
prosecution Of these claims, but it
saves expressly its own position from
the MISUNDERSTANDING to iss con-
se,ssios that said clsinss we're inclu1ed
IN the Treaty." But although the
British position ID. not thus saved it 10
not set aside. by the new article. II
there is any implication either way i
is that these Claims were included,
else they could not now be disposed
Of by . supplementary aTticic-as
they could not have been by an ORR
ginsl ARTICLES they could not have
been by no means conclusive, since
the subsequent misunderstanding is
ground sufficient for the new article.
The other part Of the question.
aAre such claims JUST" is not settled,
but simply avoided. II could not be
reached until the FIRST part was set
tied, and that not being settled, neither
is. It may be supposed that the
agreement of both nations that such
claims win not be urged hereafter by
either, in any case, on account Of the
''want Of diligence in the performance
Of neutral obligations" by the othsr is
IN admission and declaration by both
sides that they are not just. But it
is nothing Of the kind. Il is very far
from being 30. So far, again, - it
carries any implication either way it
certainly is, At first glance, that way;
but some other reason or reasons may
induce the two powers to agree to
waive them besides their injustice,
which is not given as the reason for
the joint waiver at all or even limited
at. And as this is the vital part Of
the question in dispute, though not
yet reached, there is an implication in
Its not being mentioned either that 1t
IL not the reason or that both powers
are Intentionally silent - 10 whether
It 10 or not. Moreover, here again the
Misunderstanding - 70 the preiimin-
ary question Of the admissibility Of the
question Of their justice accounts en-
tirely for the joint Notwithstanding
the question Of their Justice unsettled
and untouchsd. V
Moreover, tho patent fact that the
United States foregoss the prosecution
Of such claims, now and hereafter,
simply bscause Great Britain agrees 70
do the ssnns, removes the settlement
by the supplementary article from oil
grounds Of principle TO those Of mere
temporary policy. 4
In the division Of the question our
Government agrsss that these claims |
shall not b . part Of the cass brought |
70 an Issue = 0snsva, and England |
agrees 70 sccspt . polite arrangement
bstwssn the two powers II place " :
dscasi0a thae thsy ere inAdmissibls Or |
unjust claims either Or both. Evil
dsatsy issoms other eass Into which |
shs temporary part Of the question, o. /
g! eaaaMls1loe1, - ~ enter. the
~ pass g - NqseGo1eo, I. .. tAelr
juse3ee nv as0GnetlaSe re-sopear.