New-York tribune., 1878-05-27

THE WASHINGTON TREATY ON CRUISERS.
The endeavOr made in some quarters to ap-
ply the neutrality rules of the Treaty Of Wash
ington to any present dealings between our
merchants or shipowners and Russian agens,
and the inclination shown i'll others TO tlOut
the treaty as of no general obligation, are
equally founded in careless misconceptions.
That paper is compact between Governments
and for a time when one of them may be at
war. 1t does not prescribe rules for indlvld-
uals, nor for times of peace. 1t does not forbid
offences by subjects; it enjOins duties on the
sovereign power. 1t has even no force upon a
government while peace reigns only during
war is it infused with authority and meaning.
Those who shake it in the faces of our citizens
at the present time, to deter them from selling
what they see fit, show strange iSnor-
ance of its meaning. The only sensible ques-
tions to be made upon the treaty are such
as relate to obligations which it may be found
to impose upon our government at Washing
ton. All that the treaty contains bearing upon
saIes of vessels to Russian agents can be
quoted in few words: GA neutral govern
"ment is bound. first TO use due diligence to
"prevent tho fitting out arming or equiping
"within its jurisdiction Of any vessel which it
"has reasonable ground to believe is intended
"tO cruise or TO carry on war against power
" with which it is at peace" There is an aux
iliary clause against allowing such vessel to
depart from the neutral's jurisdiction. When
ever Great Britain shall be involved in war,
she Will be entitled to call upon our Govern
ment for compliance with this neutral Obliga-
ton. Until war, the rule is vacuous.
III md N form
is only a treaty; apparently, therefore, it
gives Russia no right or claim whatever, and
rs toward Great Britain, even, it might be re-
scinded. But i'll the preliminary negotiations
and in the framework of the treaty our Gov
ernment advanced the neutrality rules as be-
ing permanent and general principles of in
temational law, and complained that Great
Britain had not Obeyed them. Great Britain
disputed the principles rs for the past, but
consented that the arbitTatOrs should be gov
erned by them and the contracting parties
agreed, 10 observe these rules between them
selves in future, and to invite other maritime
powers to do so. Thereupon, the arbitrators
awarded fifteen and half millions to the
United States for Great Britain's lack of due
diligence in enforcing these rules during our
civil war. 1t is said that Great Britain has
not kept this pledge. She certainly has not
broken the rules toward us and the time
and manner of her inviting other powers
to accept them are for her to choose, not for
us to dictate. Seven years is not long enough
to warrant a charge of delay in matter OF
volunteering advice to other nations. She did
not engage to travel continental Europe with
tracts upon the subject In course of years,
and as occasions arise, she is to invite the ac-
cession Of other nations. This, presumably,
she will do. Meantime, suppose another ma
tion, Russia for instance, claims from the
United States the benefit of the rule Doubt
less treaty may be rescinded. But how shall
we rescind deliberate and repeated declarations
of rule of law such as are on record from
the United States oil through the Alabama
controversy. Clearly the history of the treaty
and award give nearly the same support to
claims from Russia as from Great Britain.
The treaty, then, and the general law Of