The Manitowoc tribune. [volume] (Manitowoc, Wis.) 1866-1878, 1872-05-23
Common SeIase :u Es:Esanacy.
From the New York Observer.

|
tions, than the last treaty between the
| United States and Great Britain. The
| story &c the muGdle is as follows:
y number OF Commissioners came over
o our country from England, to settle
he trouble arising from the depredstions
Of certsn n steamers that annoyed us dur
ing the recent civil wnr. These commits
| sioners were met by Others on cur. part,
| and the work cf negotiation was begun,
and carried On fer many weeks. Failing
| - agree among themselves, it was by a
.olenn treaty determined that the re-
spective claims should be referred for e.
nal adjudication to impartial arbitTators
to sit 10 Switzerland and hear both sides.
H0I tiIu vrIivrIU0 of oil parties, Our
claims were drawn out and printed In
time to be examined By the other party
as well as by the arLitrators; they were
printed and sent to England read BY
| the Commissioners who had negotiated
| the Treaty read by the Prime Minister
and the members Of his government land
not word Of exception taken, until the
leader of the opposition to the British
Administration made an outcry against
the claim which we had made for dam
ages indirectly resulting to us from the
privateers fitted out in British ports.
This outcry alarmed the..British Govern
ment. and instantly the Prime Minister
and his party cried out louder than their
opponents, that they would not go into
arbitration if those Indirect and conse-
Quentlal damages were to be considered
The whole British nation joined in the
outcry ; and the Treaty, the great tri-
umph of Christian civilization, was
trampeled under foot, and the peace of
the world imperilled; because zoe, Ameri-
cans, according to its terms, have spread
our whole case before the arbitrators, and
have asked them to decide between US.
Common sense comes in, and condemns
the course Of the British Government and
people, for these simple reasons,-
l. The Treaty secured the submission
of our claims to arbitrators. There was
no exception or Limitation or reservation
and the Commissioners and the British
Government are unable to point to a
word in the Treaty that hints at the idea
that claims for consequential damages
are not to be Submitted, while in the
protocols accompanying the treaty, they
are explicitly alluded to as part of our
complaint.
2. If they are just claims, they should
be examined by the arbitrators and esti
mated and allowed, Ifthey are not just
claims the arbitrators should so decide
and reject them. IF the arbitrators are
men to whom we and Great Britain are
willing to submit part Of our claims,
why not all Of them? Common sense
says that the party objecting to the sub
mission Of the claims fears that they IA ay
be allowed by the arbitrators. If SO,
there must be justice in them.
We are Of those who regret that the
claim for indirect damages was put in
We regret it because it has given occa-
sion to the opponents Of the British Gov
ernment to make political attack upon
the administration which has compelled it
to protest against going on with the arbi-
tratlon, thus putting in jeopardy the
peace Of the two countries. But We
believe that the principle involved in our
demand is Of vast moment to the world,
and it is eminently proper that court,
constituted as the Geneva Board is,
should pass upon it, If our claim is
withdrawn, it will be concession to the
political exigeucies Of the Gladstone gov.
ernment, and it will be magnauimous
perhaps in our government to make the
concession. But it merely postpoues the
settlement Of question that Great Bri-
| tain herself will not now unite with us in
adjusting. 1t makes this great Treaty
an unfinished piece of business. And
instead of healing the wounds of the Ala
bana, it irritates the old sores, and
threatens to make them break cut again.
| Z. S.-We now have the report that
the British Government has taken unon
itself the grave responsibility of with
drawing from the negotiation. The
Gladstone Ministry decline finally and alb
solutely to negotiate upon the principle
of interential indemnity, not only main
tanning that the treaty covered no such
question as that of findirect damages, but
being unable to enter into any agreement
outside Of the GenevaConfereuce whereby
it could become public Law between the
/, two nations that neither. as neutral
should be liable for such damages in case
either became belligerent. Our Gov.
ernment Indirectly limited to Great Brit
ain that the latter might submit such q
proposition, but the Gladstone Ministry
pivotal point was that the disputed fea
ture OF the American case should be frs
abandoned at Geneva. That the Secre
tary of State and the President declined
to do, and the point is therefore reached
at which England abandons the arbitra
ton and the treaty fails.
THE LATEST STAGE.
There is still a prospect that the matte
may be arranged by supplementary O.
a substituted treaty, in which it shall b.
distinctly declared that 10 future comp Ii
cations neither party shall be liable 70
indirect damages. 1t this is agreed to
the question of indirect damages 10 th,
pending arbitration will be dropped b.