The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-02-29
The Treaty Diniculty Viewed In WASH
instos and by Ex-secrctary sewnrd.

anu VI Tue byupatny mauliebteu ny Ameri-
cans. both in England and at home, with the
British people on that occasion, the telegram
from Washington to this paper showed that
there was little prospect of the deadlock be-
tween the United States and Great Britain
over the disputed point of the Alabama claims
being removed. We are informed that the
British Minister, Sir Edward Thornton, had
notified our government, under instructions
from home, that unless the claim of the United
States for consequential damages be with
drawn there can be no settlement at Geneva,
or through the Geneva arbitrating convention.
This, it is reported, is the tenor of Lord Gran
villes note on the subject. We learn at the
same time that while the President and
his Cabinet are seriously celebrating over
the matter, and while the phraseology OF the
note to be sent to the British government in
reply will be made as friendly and unobjec-
tionable as possible, the position of our gov
eminent is unchanged. The President and
Cabinet after fully considering the matter,
have concluded that the American case as pre-
pared for the Geneva arbitrators, cannot be
withdrawn.
Under these circumstances the President, 1t
is said, is meditating over the policy of reiter-
ating the recommendation he made to Con-
gress in 1870, for our government to pay the
Alabama claimants by issuing bonds and
| then to bold the British government debtor
for these till some future day of settlement.
In the meantime some of the claimants appear
to be DESTROYS of obtaining payment
directly from the British government
without the Intervention Of their own
government This the Secretary of State
does not favor. though it is reported the
President has no objection to such proceed
| ing. OF course this would leave the difficulty
about consequential damages just where it
stands at present. The President will not
give up this claim until the Geneva arbitrators
| decide upon it or some new and acceptable
proposition be made by England as compro-
mise. There is an earnest desire to maintain
peace and friendship with England, but there
will be no yielding on the question at ISSUE
Should the British government continue to
assume an attitude that precludes settlement
the President, probably, will send special
message to Congress on the subject, and leave
the responsibility with that body. The failure
of the treaty would not necessarily involve war,
| though It would leave an unpleasant feeling
existing between the two countries. From
present appearances the matter is likely to be
left to the temper and judgment Of Parliament
and Congress.
Meanwhile ex-Secretary Seward reappears
on the well-worn Alabama carpet, and has
something to say about the Treaty Of Wash
ington and the famous dinner table treaty of
Mr.. Seward prefers the latter to the former.
Indeed, he looks upon the present troubles as
the legitimate result of the rejection by
the United States Senate of the Johnson
Clarendon Treaty, and evidently has the
failure of that negotiation still laid
up at heart. His objection to the present
mode of settlement is based rather UPON SEN
timentality than upon any practical consider
atoms, The Lincoln government, he says, In
all their attempts at solution of the difficulty,
insisted upon a distinct apology for the
Queens proclamation according belligerent
rights to the Southern rebels, or at least upon
an apologize explaining away of the awkward
feature of the controversy. He regards the
Treaty of Washington as having somewhat
lowered the dignity of the position here
tofore assumed by the United States,
inasmuch as it seeks money compensation
for the alleged misdeeds of the English gov
| eminent during our hour of trial and suffering,
,JoJO kofxy
as might satisfy wounded national honor, If
it did not benefit the national exchequer. This
is certainly patriotic theory on the part of
our ex-Secretary Of State; yet we recall the
hard, cold, commercial provisions of the treaty
which that clear eaded man of business, Lord
Clarendon, palmed off upon the amiable
bon yiyant who then represented the United
| States at the Court of st. James, and we can
remember no word Of apology or regret that
| IL contained. 1t was, in fact, most undigni-
! fed, unworthy, Gradgrind-like document in
which the mere payment by the British gov
| erument of the claims of those citizens who
had experienced actual losses from the depre-
dations of the Anglo c oufederate privateers,
after complete and satisfactory proof of their
accuracy, was to be accepted by the United
States as settlement In full for al the viola
tons ofinternational law, treaty obligations and
friendly relations of which England had been
guilty during the war-of the rebellion. II the
Lincoln administration really desired to hold
the British government to an apology for the
PRONUNCIATION of the Queens proclamation,
there was no attempt to secure that plaster
for our wounded honor in the Johnson
Clarendon Treaty, and hence its rejection by
the Senate was justifable, If for no other
reason, on the ground that it could not have
been full and entire settlement of our diff.
ferences with England, growing out of the at