The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-05-30

us to admit that. when at Washington taking
part IN the negotiation of the treaty, he was in
some way led to believe that these indirect
claims were to form no part Of the case to be
presented to the Geneva Tribunal. Ii such a
promise. was made, or if anything was officially
said or done at Washington to encourage the
English Commissioners in such belief, the
subsequent conduct of our government is repre-
hensible and disgraceful in the extreme.
What then are the facts in this case?
Has Sir Stafford Northcote told the truth?
Is it true or is it not true that such promise
was made? Who made the promise? Was
the promise made by an official authority or
was it made under the sanction of official
authority? These questions must be an
swered, and answered at once. We call upon
Secretary Fish to answer them without delay
The honor of the American people is at stake
Their amour propre has already been sufi-
GENTLY wounded by the bungling of the adj
ministration in this treaty arrangement;
and they will not submit to be held up by their
rulers to the scorn and contempt of all right
thinking men. We cannot afford to have it
said of us that, in order to accomplish GER
tain purpose we make promises in secret and
that when our purpose is accomplished we
break those promises in public. 'P,mica
.fdes' and 'Perfidious Albion are phrases
which will live and which through oil time
will fifty characterize the policies of two great
peoples Our record is as yet clean, and
fba f,i fop &c
republic to be stained by course of conduct
which Great Britain condemns and which Car
thage would have scorned Sir Stafford North
cote has as yet spoken for himself alone but
his speech is not the only intimation that we
have had that some such pledges were given.
In day or two, at most Sir Stafford will, in
his place in Parliament, enter fully into de-
tails, and we shall know what were the reasons
which led him to believe that on assurance was
given that indirect damages would not come
before the Geneva Tribunal It is not impos-
sible that Sir Stafford was unintentionally mis-
led, and we shall not be at all disappointed or
surprised TO learn that he erred by believing
too much or too readily, or rather by putting
upon words q meaning which the words were
not intended to convey 1t is just as possible,
however, that he will make good his position,
and that he will not be unsuccessful in bring
ing home to our Washington officials the
charge Of wilful deception We are the more
encouraged to expect some such result from
the language which has just been used by
another Of the British Commissioners In
a lecture delivered at Oxford on Tuesday
night Professor Montagu Bernard said, speak
ing of the Washington Treaty, that 'circum-
stances prevented him from replying to the &c
cusations which had been made Of carelessness
and too implicit reliance upon what had been
called understanding on the part of the British
members of the Joint High Commission In
the premises we know of no one who is so
Immediately and directly interested on this
side of the Atlantic as Secretary Fish. What
are the actual facts in the case he knows or
ought to know. If a promise was made that
the claims for indirect damages should not be
presented before the Geneva Tribunal Secretary
Fish made it or ought to know who made it.
Ii no such promise was made he ought to be
able to say that no such promise was made
It is now SOME days since we learned by cable
dispatches what Sir Stafford Northcote had
said. 1t is now some days since we
called upon Secretary Fish to speak
out and vindicate himself if he could
The days have rolled past, and the Secretary
If State has remained silent What does this
silence mean? In view of what has been said |
~ Sir Stafford Northcote and by Professor
Bernard, and in prospect of the full revelation
which Sir Stafford on an early day must make
in the House of Commons, Secretary Fish
must be ignorant Of the duty which he owes to
himself as well as to the American people if he
does not tell us oil he knows about this sun
or misunderstanding. We do
not think we say too much when we say to
Secretary Fish that in this case delay is dan
gerous-specially dangerous to himself.
This question, however, involves in reality
less an imputation on the faith of the
nation than on the veracity of Sec
rotary Fish. 1t should be cleared up with
out delay, that no stain should rest on either.
For the present we shall content ourselves
with marking closely the conduct of our Cabi-
net under the pressure of the latest threat
which England has thrown out.
Rumored Cabinet Change-Who Is To