New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-11-27
SENATOR MORGAN HITS BACK.
PUNGENT REPLY TO SIR JULIAN
PAUNCEFOTE.
THE BRITISH AMBASSADORS STATEMENTS "a
PIECE OF PREsUMPTUoUs ARRoGANcE"-To

PIECE OF PREsUMPTUoUs ARROGANCE"
BRING THE CANADIAN CLAIMS UP
AGAIN IN THE SENATE.
Washington. Nov. Ex-senator Morgan returned
from Alabama this morning. and first saw the alb
stract Of the correspondence between Sir Julian
Pauncefote and the British Foreign Office when 1t
was shown to him by a reporter. After reading 1t
carefully Senator Morgan characterized the state
ments Of the British Ambassador as a piece Of
presumptuous arrogance"
Discussing the subject in general Senator Morgan
continued:
The treaty having made 1t the duty Of the De
partment OF State to negotiate with Great Britain
as to the question OF the liability for damages by
either Government the other. 1t would be
breach OF all propriety for me to enter into
diplomatic discussion or controversy with or Juan an
on the subject OF the claim of Great britain LOT
damages sustained in the seizure of vessels in
Behring Sea. He may consider 1t entirely approprl
ate to arraign Senator OF the United states ior
statements or opinions uttered In debate on .hs
piece OF presumptuous arrogance on his part thus
to arragn and crit.cise my remarks; IN, -
pressy required by the treaty. is necessarily in the
hands OF the Department OF State and all nave
and that the country shall be informed OF the Iact5
and principles upon which Great Britain demand
for damages is based and is resisted by the Govern
ment of the United States, II It is resisted. ! nave
but this morning returned from a long absence
Julian should find II necessary to go into print and
to set on foot a controversy with me. when II ne
the United States Government through the proper
channels whatever he may have to say on the sun
ject.
The Senate will now be in session very soon and
when the official correspondence Is laid before tna
body shall again avail myself OF the opportunity
OF nquiring into the nature OF these cams anu
of determining for myself whether or not the Gov
eminent of the United States is esiopped rom
examining denying a claim for DAMAGES Whlch
the Tribunal OF Arbitration mad no authoriy 10
pass upon, did not in any manner act upon anu
expressly refused to consider. -,
I contend as l have always contended. That the
principles OF the decisions Of the Paris award are
fatal 10 the claims of Great Britain growing out
OF the seizures of these vessels hope 10 ne aole
to sustain this opinion at the proper time, whoever
may entertain adverse Views 10 mine on tnls ques-
ton As 10 Sir Julian's assertion that the applo-
priation defeated by strong party ieeiIh ~,
fnasmuch as the Democrats had a large majority
In the House when the appropriation was De
feated Il IS not likely that strong party leeLhg
existed IN antagonsm 10 the recommendatioMs OF
the President The fact is that the claim was re-
fused in the House because IT was based neatne I
upon equity nor justice, the House uhdeis, cOu
IT, But ! had nothing to say about the matter,
either publicly privately until the question: was
raised in the Senate. and then only IN rev re-
marks I'm the closing hours OF the session Al 'hat
tine | presented in outline the substance OF the
objections which had 10 urge aGa:mst me conan
lions OF the agreement TO pay the SZ'uVo. H.. -
The fact that the agreement was inade sNpJect, ~
the ratification of Congress is IN itself suggestion
10 nv mind that the agreement ma peeh IsACheu
nv a compromise both OF facts and principles