The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-05-16
The British Assault Upon the Honor
OF the Republic-The Imperative Duty
OF the American Senate.

Tho British Assault Upon the Honor
or the Republic-The Imperative Duty
OF the American Senate.
The great journalistic enterprise which yes
terday morning placed before the people of the
United States exclusively in the columns of
the New YORK HERALD the entire correspond
enco between the British and American gov
ernments on the subject Of the case submitted
by the latter to the Geneva Conference has
brought to the knowledge of the country
sooner than the politicians expected or de-
sired the details of the negotiations in which
we have been engaged and the character of the
final proposition offered to us by England as a
settlement of the controversy she has forced
upon us. In consequence of the grave i'm
portance of the subject we repubish to-day the
cable dispatches embraced in the later cores
pondence. A perusal of these documents will
expose to the world more clearly than ever the
unreasonableness of the concessions demanded
by the English government under the threat
of reputation of treaty made at its own
solicitation, and will confirm the popular faith
on this side of the Atlantic in the
justice and propriety of our hitherto professed
determination to insist upon the consideration
of the American case by the Geneva Tribunal
as prepared by ourselves, and not as mutilated
by England. Although the leading points
embraced in the diplomatic correspondence
have long been known, it needed the publica-
ton of Earl Granvilles letter of March 90 to
show us the actual weakness Of his position.
Every argument he uses to justify the dilatory
protest of his government against our claims
for indirect damages is successfully met and
refuted by Secretary Fish Lord Granville
declares that these claims were heard Of Off
cially by Her Britannia Majesty for the first
time in the American case, as being included
in the sAlabama claims, = which had thereto
fore been understood to embrace only the
direct claims of American citizens for the
depredations of the Anglo Confederate priva-
teers; but Secretary Fish shows that, although
the indirect claims were never formulated by
our government, they were advanced and
alluded to in almost every official communica-
ton on the Alabama controversy from the note
of Mr.. Adams to Lord Russell in Novem-
her, 1862, down to the date of the Reverdy |
Johnson Treaty, and were specifically con-
sidered and discussed by the Joint High Com
missoners by whom the Treaty Of Washington
was framed. Lord Granville refers to the
waiver by the British High Commissioners Of
the Canadian claims against the United States
for injuries suffered from Fenian raids, partly
in consequence of the constructive character
of portion Of such claims, and thinks Her
Majesty's government were justified in expect
ing that after this concession the constructive
or indirect claims of the United States were in
like manner to be waived but Secretary Fish
reminds His Lordship that 'what are termed
tilc VI SHiCuU IL eAO
treaty." and pertinently asks ''if the relin-
quishment by the United States of part of
their claim was the equivalent therefor, why
is not that set forth" in the treaty also?
But we do not propose to follow the course
Of the argument in all its turnings and wind
ings 1t is of little interest now to the Ameri-
can people to note the singular diplomatic
blunder made by Lord Granville in advancing
as one Of the reasons for the belief of his gov
eminent that the indirect claims were not
proper subject of reference to the Geneva
Tribunal the fact that Minister Schenck was
present in the British Parliament when both
His Lordship and the Earl Of Derby declared
in debate that those claims were not embraced
in the scope of the treaty, and that he failed
to make protest against such Interpretation
Of the instrument Secretary Fish sufficiently
exposes the absurdity Of this special plea by
reminding the British Minister that the ut
terances in Parliament are privileged
that if the representatives Of foreign
Powers are bound to take notice Of
them they have the right to remonstrate against
them, which would destroy the independence
of Parliamentary governments and that had
Minister Schenck interfered either to remon-
strate or demand explanation, he would have
exposed himself to the just rebuke which the
United States have ere now had occasion to
administer to diplomatic agents of foreign