New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-04-12
THE UNITED STATES AND THE BRUSSELS
TREATY.

THE UNITED STATES And THE BRUSSELS
TREATY.
We printed yesterday letter from Henry NJ.
Stanley appealing warmly and forcibly to the
American people in behalf of the treaty framed
last year at Brussels looking to the practical
support by all Christian nations OF the Congo
Free State in a war against the Arab slave
catchers of Central Africa. This convention, 1t
will be remembered, was the issue OF confer
ence participated in by seventeen European
States and by this country 1t was agreed that
the treaty should not 90 into effect until ratified
by all the Powers whose representatives signed
it, and July 2, 1891, was fixed as the limit Oh
time within which ratification should be pos
sible. If at that time any Power had refused
or neglected to sign, the treaty was defeated
and the noble enterprise it contemplated was
to be looked upon as abandoned. OF the seven
teen European Powers all have promptly and
cheerfully assumed the philanthropic obligations
imposed by the treaty. The United States, the
home of freemen, the Nation which has been OF
all others most harmed by the aave-trade in
iouity, is the only Power which has rejected
the treaty and which stands to-day in defence
of this monumental shame, this reproach upon
Christian civilization.
1t can scarcely need to be said that the Sen
ate, in performing its constitutional duty with
regard to the Brussels Act, did not entertain
any such purpose as this as the motive Of its
decision. Nor did 1t consider that such de-
plorable result was the necessary effect OF our
refusal to engage in operations so remote rom
our shores and so foreign to the immediate in
terests of our people. The feeling of Senators
who opposed the treaty was simply this-that as
European nations would in the largest sense
profit by the development Of Africa, as they and
not we had colonial and commercial interests
there. the duty of exterminating the slave trade
rested upon them and ought so to rest, and that
our active participation was not required, nor,
in view Of our long settled policy OF non-inter-
ference beyond the sea, wise or SAFE Ihere is
force in this argument cold and unsympathetc
as we must confess it to be. The question is
whether it fairly represents the will OF people
so intensely devoted as ours to the great
cause Of universal freedom whether the Ameri-
can Nation, perceivng that the march OF civiliza-
ton in Turkey, in Egypt, as we'll as In the Dark
Continent, was to be stayed and driven back
by reason of Its refusal to take hand In active
measures of philanthropy, would not feel itself
called upon in SO noble an interest to overlook
selfish considerations and to depart from policy
that scarcely contemplated such situation
Our people know almost nothing about the
Brussels Treaty. They have not considered 1t
in any thoughtful sense at all, and it was frank
" acknowledged in the Senate that no adequate
examination of it there was at the time pos
sible. The business of the Senate, as all
know, was much delayed by prolonged political
aeitations and partisan discussion, and it took
rp the treaty almost at the hour of adjournment.
This. if unavoidable, was still unfortunate, not
only because it left only few moments for the
debate of a great measure of duty and policy,
but also because it offered the opportunity to
foreign nations to accuse us of neglect and even
of want of civility. Anxious to secure our CO.
operation, the European nations had in many
matters deferred their unanimous view to the
Judgment of our delegates going so far in that
direction, indeed as to weaken the engagement
materially. Our representatives, having ever be-
fore their minds the necessity OF submitting
their work to the critical judgment OF the Sen
ate, and heedful at all times of the American
prejudice against foreign entanglements, exer-
cised something very like veto power over
each proposition brought before the Conference.
In adapting their plan 80 generally to meet the
views of the American delegates the European
nations were led to hope for a favorable result
when the convention got before the United
States Senate. TO find it so long postponed so
briefly considered and action upon it then de-
ferred until time later than the final date set
for the exchange of notifications, thus, in effect,
rejecting it, has created profound disappoint-
ment in Europe.
Mr. SANKEY'S appeal for the salvation of the
treaty is entitled TO much thoughtful attention.
Under all the circumstances of this case we
feel confident that the people will be glad to
have a treaty again taken up and this time
Ahly debated. This in the ordinary course Of
events the Senate would naturally do if the
treaty were only alive at the time of its
next session. Perhaps, however, there is a
way of holding the matter In allegiance which
will satisfy Europe, please the American people
and yet in no sense reflect upon or annoy the
Senate. Might not the President, by circular
letter to the Powers, promising to request the
Senate again to call up the treaty, induce them
to extend the date at which the notifications are
finally required? Meanwhile public sentiment
could have the opportunity of asserting itself