The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-04-12
thoroughly ashamed of our neighbors hu-

mility
All this humility and meanness of spirit
comes we presume, from desire to 'save
the treaty" There has been more than
enough of this already. The Treaty of Wash
lngton Is not too sacred to be destroyed. The
Three Rules are not such remarkable pieces of
statecraft that the United States must go
peddling them all over the world. Indeed,
we doubt if there ever was any serious purpose
OF maintaining them on the part of Great
Britain. There is certainly no such purpose
now. The Alabama controversy is over, and
we arc in some sense the victor Great
Britain grumbles because there is money to
pay, and, knowing that Mr.. Fish regards the
Three Rules as the triumph of his craftsmanship
and diplomacy, refuses or talks about refusing
to recommend the rules to other Powers. The
only true American answer to this position is
in genuine Yankee question, "Who cares?"
The American people walloped Great Britain
on the battle field before the Three Rules were
invented. and we can wallop her again after
they are forgotten.
Rules of International law peddled over the
universe are not likely to make all men kin or
to keep the world at peace. Besides oil this,
the English people are prcverbial treaty
breakers. Whatever fails to conduce entirely
to English interests is certain to illustrate the
fact, which has become historical namely
that English faith is Punic faith. The English
government will pay the Geneva award, we
are told, without grumbling; but this we
may well doubt, in view of the idle chatter OF
English statesmen about the proper interpre-
tation of the Three Rules and the propriety of
joining the United States in recommending
them to the other Powers. To mediate q
refusal in this matter is simply to mediate n
act Of bad faith, for the Treaty of Washington
requires it, and the alleged differences in the
Interpretation Of the rules are mere pretexts
for the evasion of an obligation. 1t is matter
of little importance at best, but as it seems that
we are never to be entirely rid ofquestions grow
ing out of the Washington Treaty we are glad
that Mr.. Cushng's book has appeared upon SO
timely an occasion, for it will give spice to
what would otherwise have been very stupid
controversy.
The only practical result of contest over
the Interpretation to be put upon the Three
Rules will be thorough criticism of the char
acter and conduct of Sir Alexander Cockburn
as an arbitrator at Geneva. This has already
been shown in the speeches of MIR. w. E.
Forster and other members Of Parliament.
English statesmen naturally enough magnify
the services of the Lord Chief Justice, because
it is certain he will be attacked, not only by
the friends Of the treaty, but by the friends Of
the other members of the Geneva tribunal.
They, Count Sclopis Baron Itajuba and Mr..
Staempfi, were insultcd by him as well as the
American counsel and the American people. Mr..
Cushing was the first to attack Sir Alexander
on this side Of the water, and by fortunate
circumstance his attack is simultaneous with
the effort of the British Parliament to defend
and exalt the course of tho British arbitrator.
This will not be great result, it ia true, but
it will be immensely diverting, and we shall re-
joice greatly every time Mr.. Gushing strikes out
from the shoulder at his English critics. The
treaty always was nuisance, and it brought
the American people very little in return for
all the wrongs and outrages inflicted upon
them by Great Britain. The Judgment of the
world has been that English conduct and
policy during our civil war were utterly indie
feasible. Fortunately, every matter OF great
public interest is settled, and as the only thing
that remains is personal controversy we pre-
fer that it shall be as lively as possible.