New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-05-13


close season. Mr.. Dayad had got all nc as~cu'
all he wanted and all that at that ''''c va,
supposed to he necessary for the protsc''o' u
the sal. lie would have been uhwiSe 10 n''o
thrust into the further negotiation al! c'"'"'
of property or Jurisdiction which might nave
furnished an occasion of dispute. sun ne was
careful 10 impress upon Lord Salisbury "he"
the agreement had been reached, that IL was
proposed because the United states wshed 10
avoid the consideration Of special measures OF
its own which "the exceptional character Oh
tho nroperty in question might require 1t to rake
in casa of the refusal OF foreign Powers to give
their corporation
Democratic newspapers, less patriotic than the
Dem. cratic statesmen who form so conspicuous
and valuable n part Of our representation a'
Paris are never tired of employing the injurious
INSTRUMENTATION which Sir Charles Russell has
been so sharply checked in his attempt to make
use of that there was an essential difference
between the contention of the Cleveland Gov
eminent and that advanced by Mr.. Blaine.
"Tbe New-York Times" in an effort, which
does il no credit, to prejudice the proceedings
ut Paris. repeated this misrepresentation yes
terday. "Mr Bayard," said "The Times, ~" as
Secretary of State started upon the safe and
tenable ground that the object could only be
attained by international agreement, but MIR.
blaine cast that aside and boldly assumed that
the United States had all the jurisdiction and
power necessary for the protection of the in
terest for itself, even to the extent OF Selling
any vessels engaged in the capture OF seals"
The want of sagacy in this remark is obvious,
for the vessels over which the controversy arose
were seized by Mr.. Cleveands Government,
and if he had not thought he had the power to
seize them why did he do it? Why did he
allow them to be condemned after they had
been seized? And sold after they had been
condemned? And why, in behalf Of the Treas
ury, did he take the proceeds? The truth,
which these unpatriotc Democratic newspapers,
in their inscrutable attempt to do Great Britain
service. constantly ignore, is that from the time
Mr.. Bayard began his negotiation for an inter-
national agreement until September II, 1883,
when he received Mr.. Phelpss final dispatch
informing him that Lord Salisbury had re-
pudated his promise to enter into the close
time treaty, he had every reason to suppose
that his friendly diplomacy would succeed.
When Mr.. Phelps's letter put an end to that
hope the elections in this country put limit
on Mr. Bayard's Secretaryship, and he had then
no occasion to declare those exceptional meas
ures' or that exceptional marine jurisdictIon'
which he had warned foreign governments, IN
case of their refusal to agree to a treaty, he
should declare, and which he had illustrated by
Selling condemnng and selling the offending
ships Of Great Britain.
Naturally, when Mr.. Phelps informed MIR.
Bayard that Lord Salisbury had Withdrawn his
promise and that there was no hope of inducing
him even to discuss the matter further, the
question at issue not being acute in the winter
season and Mr. Clevelands Administration
being due to end on March 4, Mr. Bayard made
no further Ort to deal with the matter. Con-
scious of having done the best he could, and
Of having failed only because Lord Salisbury
had repudiated his repeated engagements, he
left the new Administration free hand to man.
age the case in its own way. Mr. Blaine took
it up just where Mr.. Bayard laid it down. and
with frmness, q wisdom, a comprehension OF
the whole ISSUE knowledge of the facts and
of the law, and skill in advancing them which
not even the masterful counsel now presenting
our case at Paris have been able to improve
upon. he proceeded to enforce those exceptional
measures and to assert that exceptional juris-
diction which Mr.. Bayard had warned the Brit
sh Government were sure to come.