New-York tribune., 1873-02-20
NOT CREDTTABLE TO IT'S AUTHORS.
L. ~ -..--uLa-LL 4. . LL---n LLLLl
THE Treaty or WASHIYG1ON

SPEECH OF MR.. GLADSTONE IN TIE HOUSE OF
COMMONs-WHAT Is due DILIGENCE ~
On the night of the opening of the British
Parliament which took place Feb. C. tho Geneva Arbr
traGon the principal subject Of discussion The fol
lowing are some of the chief points OF tho speech OF Mr
Gladstone delivered in reply to Mr.. Dsraell
Tho whole effect of concession. far we knew
IFS effect with regard 10 the formation OF the three rules
was this that agreed 10 treat rs Il had been part
OF the international law OF tho time-tat E as II II were
part least OF special engagement 10 America, that
Gland for which our own law officers had cOntendcd in
the courts. think understand The risht honorable
gentleman that interpreting the three rules he does
notifnd that any vital cardinal objection Is to
be taken TO them But be says that on three
rules Oycret a Geneva; ana he went Oh to state
those three pOns First Of all, he says were bouad
traitors interpreted the due diligence" In
tain manner, and found to be liable 10 make
preon 0f due diligence he says it duo the Rule
That cast IN that portion ofiithe award. sir
/ deny that that had the slightest connection with
no g6rJS dUe ,Iiligcnce but merely comrnOnplace
purpose OF funlling the obligations which
It admits The question does not lie in the introduction
OF the words due diligence " 1t lies the contrary, in
the extent Of the obligation you allow 10 De incumbent
on you. want to know whether the right honorable
gentleman Is prepared admit that there Is any Ob
CATION OF international law outside Of the three rules
TO which the doctrine Of duo diligence is napplcable.
1t is the absolute duty Of every country, what
ever covenants 1t enters into, whatever 1t Is
bound TO do on behan OF foreign state, To use
diligence doing II. The question whether the words
due diligence" correctly construed by the Arb
traitors at Geneva Is a totally different ana wholly
irrelevant If admitted In any terms whatever
the obligations that admitted under the three rules
the same Judgment must nave been gwen There IS no
extravaganza in the words due diligence" What
innocent eOmmonsense phrase could have been
adOpedf In truth, they only express Or particular
the principle that must apply to every International
Obligation VIZ: thai WIN dueaOWance iOi the occasional
failure incident 10 human affairs, vigilance and earnest
Of purpose to be eXerted In giving effect 10
those obligations which are admitted 10 exist. Again,
the right honorable gentleman says the three rules were
construed at Geneva on an essential point IN manner
contrary TO construction Of them when the Arbi-
traitors proceeded TO lay down the doctrine that We we're
required by international obligation To make seizure OF
"a ship which unlawfuly escaped from our ports even
although II mad become natlohal shp Dy ie-
ceiyiDg commission az a. snip OF war Ihat
is not accurate account Of the declaration made
by the ArDitrat0s But unuOuDed the eHect Oh thelr
declaration goes 20 this extent that the receiving OF
commission and becoming ship-Otwar IN the case Of
vessel which has escaped III rdud OF our avs does not
purge It's original Orense The rlght honorable gentle
man then says that the ArbraOrs III this respect
strued the three rules differently from ourselves But
that proposition Of the ArbHratOr5 has nothing what
expressly referring 10 it ana II the lrae Iue nad not
existed n would have been Just as competent tOr the Ar
What take 10 be really the case is ths-hat the term
due diligence" has Deen subjected by the Arbrators
some may think rather rigid construction. And the
gdty or that construction Is not whit greater II II Is
whit less, than the construction winch might and
which In all likelihood would might almost say must
have been adopted II the words due diligence" had
not appeared in the rule at ALL because the doctrine OF
due diligence essential part OF the rule but ap-
phes 10 ali international obligations But before
case If strict doctrine has been laid down, and N the
first consequence Of that is that are called upon
pay money which under IA dOctriue more relaxed we
should not have had 10 pay the fact OF such strict doc
triue having been laid down important fact the
his Ory ana in the gradual formation OF International
Law But though the first effect OF that doctrine may be
unfavOrable 10 us In the sense Of requiring from
certain payment OF money, | want 10 know whether
the House in general Is OF opinion, whether the
right honorable gentleman himself Is Of opinion that the
strict OF the doctrine OF due diligence the
execution OF international obligations If pushed 10
harshness against uswhioh do not say IL has beenin
particular Is declaration OF measure unfaYOra-
BILE TO the permanent interests OF this cOuntryi The
Judgment OF the ArbitratOrs, after all. Is mterna-
tiona law. Hear heaT.l We have suffered by it To
certain limited extent, but am by no means prepared
TO admit that the ArbitTators have inflicted injury on
the permanent interests Of England ana I contend
that, whether they have or not, their dctum was
matter which is not chargcabe upon the three rules
agreed 10 between England and America. l should bo
ssrry 10 cXaggorato OvercOOr the results OF this
arbitration but, speaking generally they have been
viewed by the country at largo In the light IN which
reason aud jusuco would recommend. IL agroe-
able 10 be called upon to pay money % foreign Power.
but believe the conviction Is, that the rules under
which tho payment OF tho money wll DO for tho
permanent good OF tho country. iCheers.l