The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-05-19

Lords in regard to the Geneva arbitration
which we published yesterday confirms our
cable dispatches 1t seems that Lord Russell
intended to renew the discussion of the question
and to ask for compensation from the United
States for damages inflicted upon the subjects
of Great Britain by the Fenian raiders into
Canada His own opinion was that there
should have been no treaty. The last general
election he believed showed how the people Of
England regarded the treaty. He hoped what
was done then would never be repeated. The
newspapers comment upon these declarations
of His Lordship in the same spirit The Times
regards the convention as "misconceived and
worse-executed treaty." '.ts history painful
illustration of want of prescience and want
of strength" The STANDARD, the organ of Mr..
Disraeli's government, alludes to it as eds
creditable transaction;'' that England had
been 'overreached," and that 'the national
character of England had been lowered" The
Morning Post regards the treaty as "disparag-
ing to English honor" and that peace with
America had been purchased at dishonor-
able price" The Daily Ne,os does not see
''honor or dignity in reopening the discus
sion.
It is easy to understand this drift of public
opinion in England. We think with Lord Rus
sell that the treaty was mistake. and rather
than that the British people should feel that we
had overreached them let US return the money
and dissolve the treaty. Such ON act could not
but be regarded as gracious concession to
England, and we are willing to make it.
But there are some points in this discussion
that are not clear. Take ssthe Fenian raid"
question, for which we ara reminded every
now and then that we should pay England
damages. Is there no English statesman in
telligent or courageous enough to tell the
truth about this raid, and to compare our &C
ton at that time with the action OF Lord
Russell himself during the Confederate raids
from English soil upon American territory.
1t is true bodies of our Irish people formed
themselves into bands and attempted to in
wade Canada. As we do not govern America
on the same principle that Ireland is gov
erned, rs men in this country cannot be
arrested for holding public meetings or
abusing the Queen or the President in news
/
until their purpose became manifest But our
police watched their movements As soon as
they made an attempt to cross we took them
prisoners and imprisoned the leader for two
years. Nay more. As soon as the purpose of
the Fenians became known to President John
son he sent Generals Grant and Meade with
troops to protect the Canadian frontier. In
the interest Of peace we suppressed the raid
and punished its leaders. This is the way in
which America behaved toward England. Let
US see how Lord Russell's government treated
America. During the war Canada was made
base Of hostile operations against the United
States. There was the St Adams raid, when
body of Condolences suddenly came into
Vermont, committed depredations and re-
turned. They were never punished. Their
leader was released from custody, and not i'm
prisoned, as we imprisoned the Fenian chief.
Nor did we hear of any Canadian troops COM
ing down to protect our frontiers. When the
Alabama raids were planned in Liverpool the
Duke of Cambridge, like General Grant the
commander OF the army, was not sent down to
stop them nor was Mr. Laird, who planned
the raids, imprisoned On the contrary he was
elected to Parliament and when he avowed
his crimes against neutrality he was cheered
by the House of Commons.
These illustrations mark the difference be-
tween the two countries in the observations of
neutrality. As to the Washington Treaty, it
was made in the interest Of England, as q
measure of peace, to enable England to
protect her immense marine against the
temperance of new Alabamas in the event
of q new war with maritime power.
The adoption Of the rules put it forever
out of the power of any American Laird to
build Alabamas, that would, under the pre-
tence of peace and neutrality, sweep British
commerce from the seas To win these
rules from America was great triumph OF
craftsmanship for as long as they did not
exist, the British flag would have been attacked
by hundred American privateers. We could
not have prevented it. Now we are compelled
to do 80 or to pay the whole expense of their
depredations. This advantage England gained,
not by ON arbitration, but by the solemn agree
ment of the United States. What America
gained was the award of certain sum Of
money, for which we do not care, solemnly
granted by Court whose members condemned
England for her negligence. Are veto blame
for that Judgment Did we overreach the
Court? In what respect could '.prescience'
or strength" have changed the result2 In
what degree was our action "discreditable, y
and how did we lower the character of Eng
land? We made the treaty and we have
observed it. We went into court and we won.
Lord Russells attacks, therefore, should be
upon the unjust judges who had decided that
| lo had failed In hia dirty az a Rrifiah Min