The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-02-21

'EBKUAKY III, 1OlZ.- lhlI
the interests of New York are too large to be
made the subject of an experiment of doubtful
constitutionality and questionable wisdom at
best. We have had enough of irresponsible
government, of mixed and muddled machinery,
Of anarchy, confusion and corrupt trad
ing and bargaining and these are
the only certain results that can be foreseen
from the adoption of the charter proposed by
the theorists of the Cooper Institute Commit
tee. Let us now have a practical law to live
under, even if the various parties. cliques
and factions that assume the character OF
political organizations should be doomed to
remain unrepresented in the city government.
The Alabama Qucstion-Our Real Case
with England-Have We Committed Any
Faultp
The discussions in England on the Alabama
case and the tone of the English press demon
strate proposition that has all along been
advanced by the HERALD. The anxiety OF
Mr.. Gladstone to explain his speech at the
opening of the session, and to make himself
right with his party without invoking the
maledictions of the Times and the destruction
of his government shows that the whole
clamor against America. so far as the Minis
try Is concerned, is simply an effort to
retain power. To make this exhibit clear 1t
was necessary to allege some violations of
the treaty, or some snbterfuge or trick on the
part of the United States In fact, the only
basis of the English discussions has been that
our Commissioners in some way entrapped
the English Commissioners to sign treaty
which they did not understand or which had
q meaning foreign to the letter and spirit OF
the treaty and its conception by the Gladstone
Ministry.
| Now, let US look at this phase of the dis
cussion for q moment. If it be true that we
took an advantage of the English Ministers;
that we signed treaty which had one mean
ing on its face and another under the surface; ;
that we made case and sent it to Geneva
which advanced pretensions not warranted by
the treaty nor by any of the discussions in the
session of the Joint High Commission, then
we have behaved dishonorably to England,
| and must either withdraw our case or
make due explanations. We cannot af-
ford to hold this position. Whatever
we may think of the conduct Of the English
during our war; however we may resent the
| equipment of rebel cruisers in the Merse to
destroy our commerce, we have no right in q
solemn treaty stipulation to 60 beyond the
e ~s.,oo al.
Powers. The whole value of our case, as we
have regarded it, is that the record will show
that in no respect have we taken an advantage
of England. We 60 to Geneva with clean
hands. We shall say nothing to the members
of that august tribunal that was not said at the
treaty conferences to Lord de Grey and his
associates by Secretary Fish. The whole mat
ter of consequential damages is not new
thing, but merely legal expression of an old
story. So far from abandoning our claims for
reimbursement for the unavoidable losses
caused by the Alabama and the other cruisers,
we presented them in the deliberations pre-
ceding the signature of the treaty. They
were contemplated in the protocols, and not
TO have advanced them would have been I'M
worthy and improper.
As we have said, our treaty has this value
or it is valueless. The whole argument of the
absence of these claims for consequential
damages. Now, these conditions were ex-
pressly understood by the English govern
ment. Every point presented and elaborated
by the precise and careful author of our case
had been considered in the discussions al
Washington. The American Commissioners
expressly informed the English Com
missioners that there could be no
fair adjudication of the matter in issue
that did not contemplate the sacrifices of our
| commerce. The expenses we incurred to
} catch the English cruisers and the prolonga.
ton of the war; whether these claims were
valid or not; whether or not the English could
show that in some way the inefficiency o.
Secretary Welles and the apathy of our nava
authorities in pursuit condoned the offence,
and so relieved England from all RESPONSE
bility; whether or not there were principles
of international law which made il
improper for the tribunal to award
constructive or consequential damages
whether, in brief, we would ge
one million, or one hundred millions, OF
nothing, were questions which would have tc
be decided by the Court at Geneva. By thai
decision we should be bound. But we should
certainly go into Court advancing certain
claims. We should make our case in our owr
way. We plainly informed the members O
the English Commission what the manner o
that case would be.
So we, therefore, dispel the illusion which
seems to rest upon the mind Of the English
press and people. The whole discussion, 8,
far as England is concerned, has sprung from
the belief that in some way we deceived tn,