The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-05-31
THE QUESTION IN WASHINGTON

tion at Geneva.
THE QUESTION IN WASHINGTON.
WASHINGTON May so, 1872.
The excitement resulting from the perpexed con-
ditlon of the treaty business continues to absorb
public attention, and the prospects pro and con.
form the staple OF general conversation. The be-
lief that we have again
GOT JOHN BULL BY THE HIP,
and that the President, with the advice OF the
Senate, will persist in holding our present advan-
tage, Is quite prevalent, and is sustained by the
cautious utterances of officials who are known to
be fully informed regarding the present situation.
'THE PRESIDENT HAS AT LAST PUT HIS FOOT DOWN.
said an administration Senator to-day, who is sup
posed to have voted against ratification, "and he
will not take it up until England either comes to
our terms or assumes the responsibility of breaking
the treaty by withdrawing from Geneva" other
Senators having made similar remarks, and feel
ing Of unqualified satisfaction being apparent in
administration circles, public confidence is in
great measure restored. The result is what might
be expected from sudden conviction that
instead of national humiliation the govern
ment viii eventually assert its dignity Both in
political and private circles there is great unanim-
ity in the declaration that the administration must
he sustained at all hazards. From an administra-
ton standpoint the circumstances OF which
THE PRESENT COMPLICATIONS
are the consequence may be summed up as fol-
1ows-The difference in opinion regarding the con-
pcrf opica rrop,
fact that Great Britain denies the Jurisdiction OF
the Geneva Tribunal over the class of claims in
.cuded In the American case which are now known
as indirect claims consequential damages. The
United States main tain that the following clause in
the Washington Treaty is sufficiently explicit on
that point to authorize the submission Of those
claims to the arbitratOrs:-
All claims growing out of acts committed by the
aforesaid vessels, and generally known as the
Alabama claims, shall be referred to tribunal OF
arbitration.
The English Cabinet put forth the statement that
the British members of the Joint High Commission
were led to believe that the United States
HAD WAIVED THESE CLAIMS.
Secretary Fish shows that from the time when
Minister Adams, Nov. co. 1852, called the attention
of Lord Russell to the existence of this class Of
claims up to the present date they have been per-
sistently urged. Minister Adams communication
to Lord Russell embraced the assertion that he had
been instructed by his government to solicit re-
dress for national and private injuries already sus
tanned, and suggested the liability Of Great Britain
for losses other than those of individual sufferers
The policy thus asserted as principle of American
diplomacy has never been deserted and was espe-
cally confirmed by the action OF the Senate in
REJECTING THE JOHNSON CLARENDON TREATY
When the supplementary correspondence COM
menced last February, which has resulted in the
m tbn mi tod Etotn w fhp ref
time informed of the alleged British belief that the
national claims. or indirect claims and consequent
tal damages, as they are more commonly called,
were
NOT TO DE SUBMITTED TO THE GENEVA BOARD.
They were included in case, prepared for the
consideration of that tribunal. The administration
sustalns itself for including them in the case by the
truthful assertion that they identically the
as set forth in the discussion OF the Joint High
Commission OF March s, 1871, the minutes or
protocol OF which discussion stands approved
in the proceedings of the Commission under date
of May a. 1871. Each successive step OF the CORE
spondcnce, as prepared by Secretary Fish, sub
mitted to the President and approved by him, as
well as a majority OF his Cabinet.
THE BRITISH THREAT OF WITHDRAWAL
from the arbitration was received in due time and
was the occasion of grave apprehension. After
mature consideration 1t was agreed to attempt a
Cancellation OF the British Cabinet by an offer to
waive any demand for money award rom the con-
sequentlal damages. This offer did not meet
the requirements OF Great Britain, ana the
compromise was rejected. AT this juno
turc the loss of the treaty was almost Q
certainty At Mr.. Fish's suggestion the President
met his party friends OF the Foreign Committees OF
Congress at the State Department The whole sub
ject was explained to them In detail. The proba
bility that a further proposition would be made BY
Lord Granville was not then apparent, although
Mr. Fish had invited the British government to sub
NIT new article. The assertions repeated so fire.
quently of late that Mr. Fish backed down al thl
point from the position he had previously assume,
and persistently held are not sustained by the con
stguction placed upon this invitation by the immc
date friends OF the administration. They admi
that his invitation for the submission or new ar
ticle
OPENED THE DOOR FOR AN ARROGANT DEMAND
for further concession to Great Britain but insis
that fair construction Of his despatch OF May
will not justify the assertion that he wilfully aban
doned any principle then or now at stake. Tn
concluding sentence OF that despatch, referring {
the President, says:-
He will, therefore, be willing TO consider, and
polstbe win present for the consideration OF tn
Senate any new article which may be proposed b
the British government which, while 1T settles tb
principles Involved in the presentation OIL what or