New-York tribune., 1897-07-30
ElCTS N Az OIU CASE.

Amid all the uttcrances provoked ny Secre-
tary Shcrman's letter to Ambassador Hay about
The sealing business no one is more discreditable
To lis authors than that about the United states
having repudiated the Paris award of lSE'.
Perhaps ii would be better to say It's echocrs
Than lis authors for the English papers which
are now repeating 1t did not invent that shall
low libel That uner.viabie distinction appears
10 belong so far as can be ascertaned. TO some
of those nominal Americans who are never so
Jealous rs when maligning the Government and
institutions of their own country and pcturing
their countrymen as the drunken Helos Of hl-
manty. Those who repeat il cannot. however,
cvade responsibility for the falSehood. II they
take it from lis authors without knowing
whether it is true or false they mark themselves
as hopeesSly ignorant. But ignorance is no ex-
crsp. 1t Is an aggravGtiOn of the offence. II Is
not enough not TO krOw thing is not true.
one should know il is true before he utters II.
Here is "'rhe London Chronicle" which usual
" secs red when America is mentioned. Some
time ago ii spoke of lis sending special CORE
spondcnt 10 Washington as an enterprise Of al
most unparalleled difficulty and danger: as
though lie had been sent to find the North Pole
or to interview the King OF the Cannibal ISL
ands Later it has apparently missed no OPP
portunity of fomenting British enmity TO Ameri-
ca by telling its readers the tone of this Gov
ernnent was insulting and offensive And now
it suggests as the obvious retort 10 Secretary
Shermans letter. that 1T will be time to talk
''abOut bad faith when tre United States have
paid the sum debited 10 them by The Paris
tribunal" Here also is THE London Daily
Mail" affirming in leading article that 'ihe
United States nave repudlated the
financial findings Of the award" 1t is diff
cult httngly to characterize such utterances
without using word more emphatic than po-
lite. The facts are as the journals in question
must know # they are within the pale of ordi-
nary information that the United States has
moi 'rcpudated the financial findings Of the
award" and indeed. could not do so, because
no award was "debitci TO them by the Paris
tribunal"
The ease is perfectly simple The United
States claimed in 1893 that it had a right TO
seize British sealers in Behrng Sea. Great Brit
ain denied that right The question was sub
mtted to the Paris tribunal in Article of the
treaty. II the tribunal decided In favor of the
United States Great Britain would have 10 pay
this country indemnity for the ravages Of her
seaers in Behring Sea- If ii decided in favor
Of Great Britain the United States would have
10 pay indemnity for her seizure of British seal
ers The tribunal decided in favor Of Great
Britain, thus making the United States charge
able for such damages under all the cir
cumstances were just and equitable" But it
did not declare what such damages were. II
did not debit any sum 10 the United States. 1t
gave no financial findings" In Its award. On
the contrary it explicitly declined to do so, re-
he w IN fho
ties TO the controversy for them to settle be-
tween themselves. Under the Cleveland Ad-
ministration an attempt was made to settle it
by paying Great Britain lump sum, without
any serious attempt TO investigate the validity
of the claims or 10 ascertain what indemnity
would be Just and equitable" That bargain
was so manifestly improper that Congress. ire
spective OF party, revoltcd against II and re-