The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-06-03
The Alabama Case Again.

| There was an interesting debate in the
House OF Commons last evening in reference
to the Alabama arbitration This seems to
have as much life as the Schleswig- Holstein
question, and we presume it will become stand
ing issue in the House of Commons A Glasgow
member thinks that the American govern
ment should pay for the British property de-
stroyed by the Southern Confederacy or by our
troops in the prosecution Of the war. He did
not see why private citizens should suffer from
national ong-doing, and that as England
had paid America for what the Alabama did,
now America should pay England for what
her people lost. The matter fell through upon
q statement by the government that under the
Treaty of Washington no such claims could be
made.
Nothing would be more gratifying to the
American people than to learn that President
Grant had directed note to be addressed to
Lord Derby saying that from motives OF self
respect the American government had resolved
to withdraw from the Treaty Of Washington,
and that as an earnest of that feeling the money
awarded by the tribunal at Geneva to the
United States would be returned. The whole
tone of the discussions in the English press,
Of these debates in Parliament, and the drift Of
discussion have been to the effect that in some
way, by a trick or chicanery or misrepresen-
tation, the United States has taken an unjust
advantage of England. The speech Of Lord
Russell on the subject and the consequent
comments of the press are fresh to our readers.
There also comes member Of Parliament who
proposes that the salary of Sir Edward Thorn
ton as British Minister should be reduced q
thousand pounds, mainly because he did not
prevent the Americans from cheating the
English. This is blunt way of stating the
case, but this is what it means. The govern
ment, instead Of saying that the British Min
lister had rendered his government con-
spicuous service in the Washington Treaty,
replied that it would not be fair to reduce his
pay because he was not to blame for the
conduct or result of the negotiations. In
other words, the English are cheated in spite
Of Sir Edward Thornton.
Plainly, the English feel, or have been
taught to feel by Lord Cockburn and tory
ucWopdpC&b, lant tn0 OhlCCO OtoeSo OvCllCSSOACO
them at Geneva. We know that the treaty
then made, and under which that arbitration
was held, was treaty made in the interest Of
England, to protect her commerce, to save her
marine in any future war from the sure retri-
button of American-built Alabamas We know
that England by acts Of unfriendliness, under
the cover of neutrality, succeeded during our
war in destroying American commerce and in
enriching her own at our expense. She had
the advantages of o neutral in time Of war,
and by this treaty she prevented us from hav-
ing the same advantages should we be neu-
trail, with England at war; This we regard as
q great achievement and Sir Edward Thorn
ton should be honored for having gained it.
But on the contrary we find the treaty the OBJ
ject Of constant criticism and censure in the
House of Commons, going to the extent of
serious proposal to reduce the Minister'S salary
as an unworthy and inefficient servant.
There is one way TO settle the matter, and
that is to withdraw from the treaty. We
should do so from reasons of self-respect
al