The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-06-24
The Secretary Of State ingrily Telcgraphs
That lie is Perfectly Composed
A Makeshift Supplemental Pro
posed to the Supplemental.
How England Failed to Ratify
the Article.
Spicy Details Of Cabinet Backsliding and
Friendly Relations @
WASHINGTON, June %. 1872.

WASHINGTON, June % 1872.
The documents embracing the correspondence on
the subject Of the Treaty Of Washington are very
voluminous. The first communication IS a telegram
from General Schenck to Secretary Fish, dated
February ., 1872 In which lie says
'IoNpoN JOURNALS ALL DrMASD
that the United States shall withdraw Its claims
for indirect damages az not within the attention OF
the treaty. Am excrting myself with hopes to
prevent anything rash or offensive being done or
said by this government. Evarts is here co-operat-
ing
Secretary Fish on the same day telegraphed to
General Schenck:-
"TnERE MUST III no WITHDRAWAL
OF any part OF the claim presented. Counsel viii
argue the case rs prepared unless they show to this
government reasons for a change The alarm you
speak OF does not reach us. We are perfectly calm
and content 10 await the award and do not antic!-
pate reputation on the other Side"
Next IN order follows
THE 'FRIENDLy GoTE''
OF Earl Granville, In which II is stated
''Her Macstys government holds that it is not
within the province OF the tribunal OF arbitration
nj Geneva 10 decide upon the claims Tor indirect
lcsses,h &c.
All the correspondence wAich followed this note
MP to the ION OF May has been Published, with the
exception Of what is hereinafter noted, namely
Dispatches from General schcnck to Secretary
Fish, dated respectively the 10th and 9th Of Feb
ruary, In the latter OF which General Schenck
Says
'Granville informed me confdent,ally, last night
that Thornton has telegraphed him that the Wash
his note aud taken further time to
consider, bnt that you have suggested he
should maxi axe, some proposal he tnsn said
he had stated the views OF Her Maiesty's govern
ment IS 10 the indirect claims; that there were
other portions OF the American case they regret,
and some of which appear to introduce matters not
german to the reference; that he has not been
able to consult the Cabinet here but Is Individually
prepared to recommend to them aud thinks with
reasonable expectation Of successl tGt they should
not press for lie withdrawal o, the American case
n the government OF the United states VIII under
take that their agent shall inform the arbrators at
or before the meeting IN June that the United
States
DO NOT ASK AN AWARD
on the indirect claims, nor that such claims should
award. nor brought forward IN case OF reference to
assessors. make no comment except TO say that
this was only equivalent 10 asking rs TO withdraw
our case, and gave No intimaton vi BELIEF that 1t
would be accepted"
Secretary rlsh tclegraphed to Minister Schcnck
In reply that the reported rejection was untrue !;
that entire unanimity prevaicd that the answer
was then being copied and that
EARL 6RAHyiIIEs sTG.Es7i6H VAS rNADMrss;BI.E.
The next telegram IS from Minister schenck to
Secretary Fish, giving the change Of language that
Earl Granville desired IN an agreement between the
two countries az to INDIRECT damages, 70 which
MI. Fish replied by telegram on February 2a:--
cannot agree to Granville's proposal as made.
desire 10 meet the British government In any hon
oiable adjustment OF the incidental question which
has arisen. out answer Il very friendly, and viii,
We nope open the way for u settlement, Whatever
thought among themselves, they did Dot cllmi.
nate the claims for Indirect losses They never
asked rs to withdraw them, nor did they allGde to
them directly OF. in plain terms, and after The de-
vbaraucns Of the JOINT commission were closed
Lord Ten.crden and the British commissioners
allowed them to be formally enumerated In the
Attn "A %
sent. General Sthcnk TO Ir. Fish. April is, relates
conversation whichhc Gene al -chenckl had with
Earl Granville, who as sured MIN that what the
most especially desired was that
A DEcISlQN or THE WHOLE QUESTION
and extent OF the liability OF neutral should be
arrived at so that The rule and the law all might
be known In the future. Indeed, among other
things told Lord Granville frankly that regretted
10 inform him there were not u fey Of cV best
people who we've growing so dissatisfied With the
position which Her Maesty's government were now
assuming that they were beginning TO say that
Great Britain, they supposed, must be permitted 10
take her course and annul The treaty In which event
the United States could surmise such an unhappy
nS 10 our G "Gi se as we o. ts
deal VI Twas expressed lnd believed IL the most
friendly manner and helped 10 give us, J hope, 3
better mutual understanding whether it may Lave
or not any other eject OF itssit. lIls lord3hp, |
am NON than ever satisfied, Il sincerely aud
lANFrlLY EARNEsi ~ Ms pGs,sE
10 save the treaty, aud have 10 d0aptt that this Is
equally true OF otAeI Ministers.
Nj. Fish 70 General scheucS lprii % writes a
long letter IN the conclusion OF which he says:--
In the correspondence have gone AZ far as pru.
denea VIII allow IN inUm0ting that we neither
desired nos expected any pecuniary award, aud that
we should be content Win ~ award thai \ state Is
not liable 10 pecuniagy damages Tor the Indirect
results or "A failure 10 observe rs neutral oNliga
tons. u Is not the interest Of q country alta.
ale rs are the United states, with .hcir
large extent OF sea coast and small navy and
smaller internal police TO have IL estab.
lished that n nation is liable In damages for
tho Indirect, remote or consequential results OF a
failure 10 observe Tho neutral duues This povern.
the past, neutral much more n the Time fhan 4
tcllgercnt. II Ia strange that the British govern.