New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1872-03-01

pletcs the proof of the position assumed in his
former communication, that tho Treaty of
Washington, as ratified by tho Senate, and ac-
ceptcd by popular opinion in the United States,
was understood to contain provision for the
submission of all our claims to the Board of
Arbitration at Geneva. II ought 10 be unne
cessary for any one to make such demon
stratiOn; but, unfortunately, Mt tho beginning
of the English Outburst of surprise and alarm,
the charge was openly made that our Govern
ment and people had previously concealed their
Interpretation of the Treaty, for the purpose
of deceiving and misleading the English Com
missioners and GOvernmca Even Mr.. Glad
stone so Ear forgot b .mself as to say in
the House of Commons that the English
Interpretation was the only fair and logical
One thus conveying the implication that
tho action of the American Government in
the presentation of their Case at Geneva was
unfair and dishonest. For while this easy
explanation of the difference of point of view
seemed to receive universal credit in England !;
but there are now evident indications every
where Of decided change in what may be
called the intelligent English opinion. For
assisting and confirming this change of opin-
efficacious His last letter especially, with its
reports of conversations with the President
and correspondence with Mr.. Sumner, cannot
fail to convince candid Englishmcn of the true
attitude of the American public in regard to
tho Treaty.
English papers are fond Of saying, and q
recent number of The Times repeats the state
ment, that there is larger number of English
men who are well informed in regard to for
eign affairs, than of Americans. They say,
| possibly with some justice, that in England
questions of foreign policy are likely to be-
| come political questions, and 80 necessarily at
| tract public interest and attention. while in
| America it is the custom to leave such matters
more within the exclusive charge of the Senate,
the habit of celebrating upon Treaties with
| closed doors assisting this tendency. But
nothing could more plainly show the occa-
| sional disposition of English people to found
| their ideas Of the course of legislation in for
eicn nations upon their personal impressions
and prejudces than the constant use which
has been made in this controversy of the
supposed part borne by Mr.. Sumner In the
conclusion of the Treaty and the preparation
of the Case. The English Commissioners made
~
and persuaded their GOvcrnmentinto believing
that the American people had repudated the
views and claims set forth by Mr. Sumner in
that famous speech which destroyed the john
| son-C Clarendon Convention, and which the En-
! glish journals have always found it more con-
venent to misrepresent than to publish. Mr.
SmGlley shows with what generous loyalty
Mr. Sumner adopted the Treaty he was not
| allowed to assist in framing, finding that it
| embodied the most important of his own ideas
and provided for the claims upon which he
| had insisted. Although it is said that the
| Secretary Of State INDUCED in the superhuous
! taunt that Mr.. Sumner would have defeated
| the Treaty if he could, it is well known to
the entire Senate that if the displaced Chair
| man of the Committee on Foreign Relations had
| not come to the rescue of the Treaty, endan-
| gered 10y the inexperience of his successor it
would probably have failed. His learning. his
| logic, and his great weight of personal char
acter, thrown in favor of this capital act of
the Administration, carried it safely through
| the Senate. This fact alone would be enough
to show what was the American interpreta-
ton of the limits of the Arbitration. The let
ter from Mr.. Sumner, quoted by Mr.. Smalley,
! also indicates the answer to the question of
those who ask what America comedies and
England and the world gain by the Treaty,
and disposes of the sneers of those who see
nothing but national hatred and prejudice in
the uttcrances of this great publicist.
cam sorry that so conspicuous negotiation
| " did not end in more for international
claw. There should have been
conservation of the great principle of inn
"munity of private property on the ocean;
| " also the denunciation a pirate of any
" ship plundering and burning prizes at sea
without taking them into port for adjudica-
ton; also the recognition OF the duty of q
| neutral power to exclude from its ports in
time of war any armed vessel engaged in
| "hostilities which does not hold q commission
delivered in some port of military or naval
equipment in the actual occupation of the
" commissioning Government. With
| "such safeguards for civilization, | would
| have been content with less for my own
country
The important question at issue is, there
| fore, not what the two contracting parties
| respectively meant when they framed this
Convention, but what they now propose to do
in relation to it. Both Governments have
clearly enough indicated their reading of the
text of the Treaty. The people of both ma
tons, so far as their opinions can be ascer-
tanned, sustain the positions assumed by their
respective Governments. Our Government
cannot withdraw its Case. Mr.. Gladstone has
said that the English Government cannot
honorably consent to meet our Case at Geneva.
The London Times with more tact and temper
than the Prime Minister, admits tho
good faith and consistency of our action,
AL In, only