Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1872-06-24
THE TREATY.
A Synopsis Of the Correspondence be-
tween the Two Governments.

/ tween Jne TWO governments.
New YORK, June 23.-The correspon-
dence between the American and Eng
! lish governments relative to the Treaty
of Washington, is telegraphed tonight
from Washington, and covers q great
amount of matter, previously published,
commencing with voluminous letters
and telegrams from Schenck to Fish in
February, and continuing to the present
time. After a great number Of tele-
grams between Schenck and Fish, COW
ering q long and frequent correspon-
dence between Schenck and Granville,
principally In relation 10 the
| phrazeology of the supplemental ar
ticle passed by the Senate, Secre-
tary Fish on the twenty second of
June, telegraphed Schenck that,
''AlthOugh by a liberal construction
of Senate articles cases Of bad faith
OF wilful misconduct may be held to be
within its scope. 1t is inconceivable
| that such cases can ever be the subject
of diplomatic correspondence with a
view to pecuinary compensation between
two powers such as those now concerned.
Fish confidentially telegraphs Schenck
on the same day, that if arguments are
put in by both sides at Geneva on the
fifteenth, and England moves to adjourn
our government will concur. On third
of June Schenck telegraphed that
Granville desired adjournment of
arbitrators without having the argu-
ments presented on the fifteenth,
but Fish Immediately telegraphed back
that this government dissented from
such a movement, and referred to the
treaty requirement that such arguments
must be presented on the fifteenth of
June. If the adjournment is contem-
plated by Great Britain with the idea of
future negotiations, it should be under
stood that this government cannot ne
gOtiate on proposition involving the
idea that it may be guilty Of interna-
tional ill-faith, or wilful violation of its
International duties, or that it regards
such acts on the part of another power
as the subject of compensation by the
payment of damagesin in money. Schenck
on the fifth instant, telegraphed
that Parliament was suspicious Of the
wording of the treaty, and suggested
certain alterations and additions to the
Senate propositions, but Fish tele-
graphed that our government did not
deal with the opposition members of
Parliament but only with the British
government, and would not agree to
any alterations. He says if the British
government adopts unworthy suspicious
as reasons for modifying the proposed
Senate article, he suggests that our
government will not, in good faith,
act on the agreement contained
therein, and all furrher negotiations must
cease at once. He then tells Schenck
that this government regards the new
rule contained in the proposed article as
the consideration, and will accept it as
the final settlement Of the classes Of in
direct claims put forth in our case and to
which England had objected. He says
further, that any change, however i'm
material, would involve discussion; but
as it is framed by the Senate, it could be
ratified in a few minutes if agreed to by
England. He said our government had
made large concessions for sake of main
tanning the important principles in the
treaty. 1t can make no more. Minis
ter Schenck telegraphed, June 9Th, that
the British government did not share
the suspicious of Parliament and others.
Lord Granville sent their notes to Min
lister Schenck on the sixth instant,
proposing further alterations and
notifications of Senate article.
to which Schenck responded by quoting
the telegram from Fish Of the day pre-
viOus. On the eighth of June Granville
stated that an adjournment Of the meet
ing of arbitrators from the fifteenth was
absolutely necessary, and proposed
that joint application for an sd-
journment of eight months be made.
If this is cOncurred in, then the British
government would deliver to the arbi-
traitors on the fifteenth the summary of
their argument, accompanied by o de-
claration which he inclosed to Schenck
for the information Of the United States.
The declaration states that the argument
is only delivered cOnditionally upon the
adjournmsnt, and gives notice that it is
the intention of the British government
to cancel the appointment Of British
arbitratOrs and withdraw from the arbi-
tration at the close of the term fixed for
adjournment, unless the difference which
has arisen between the two govern
ments as to the claims for in
direct losses shall have been re-
moved. Secretary Fish telegraphed
Minister Schenck, June 9Th, that Lord
GranvIlle's proposition Of June 6th,
could not be accepted by this govern
ment, and that it was In the power Of
the arbitratOrs themselves to adjourn
upon motion of either party, but this
government would not join in applica-
ton for adjournment. 1t would not,
however, oppose an adjournment out Of
courtesy to Great Britain, but this gov
eminent neither directly or indirectly
vrrpgRld -
Great Britain could submit her argu-
ment to the tribunal conditionally, or
under any protestor reservation, the OBJ
legations of the treaty being reciprocated.
Ii the British Government desire to
withdraw or cancel the appointment Of
their arbitrator they must do so without
asking the consent Of this government.
1t will be the duty Of the American
agent and counsel to repel very decided
ly, and in terms which self respect will
make it necessary for such withdrawal,
and this would terminate all further ne
gotiations on the part Of this govern
ment. Schenck was instructed to send
copies of all kilograms from Fish, and
Of the correspondence with Granville to
Davis at Gevena, and to keep him fully
advised of all further proceedings.
In response to the above, which was
furnished Granville by Schenck, the
British Cabinet responded that they only
desired time to perfect an agreement, at
which both parties had nearly arrived.
In informing Schenck of the action Of
the British Cabinet, Granville, on the
eleventh of June, stated the British arbi-
traitors would repair to Geneva, and that
the British agent would be instructed to
present to the arbitrators statement
that England regretted the necessity of
informing the arbitrators that the differ
ence between Great Britain and the
United States has not yet been removed,
but do not abandon the hope that,
II further time should be given,
solution might be found practicable,
and consequently Great Britain would
request adjournment for such time as
VIII enable supplemental convention
to be concluded and ratified between
the high contracting parties. The Brit
lsh Government, under these circum-
stances, would not deliver the written
argument or take any other steps in in
tended arbitration. II the difference
continues at the end of the time Of ad-
lournment, the tribunal has full powers
toproceed in same manner as expressed in
anote accompanying the British counter
case. On the twelfth, Schenek received