The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-07-24


straightforward on the other, depend
ent somewhat upon the obligations or
partisan fealty. One faithful organ ac-
counts for the expressions Of the Brit
ism press on the ground that they
'thave been so long accustomed to the
smooth sycophancy Of a Bayard that
they are startled by the manliness or
a Sherman, telling truths in a straight
forward way, without any diplomatic
glazing" There was sagacity in this
reference to Bayard, false as it is, be-
cause it avoided comparison with OIL
ney. whom Sherman is trying to follow
with legs that are painfully short"
1t is not beyond the range of posi-
bilities that our senile secretary re-
called the wave of enthusiastic support
that swept the whole country to the
support of the administration when OIL
ney's Venezuela dispatch was publish
ed, and he imagined he could play upon
the same string and thus create q
much needed diversion of public atten-
ton from the grab game being con-
summated in congress. If this was his
intention, the comment of the press,
including the more sensible papers of
his own party assures the fairness of
the failure
If 1t was intended to bring Salisbury
to terms as Oiney brought him, then
n ion
commons by Curzon shows that there,
too, it was a failure. Even if the re-
quest had more merit than it has, the
language in which it was couched was
such that declination was inevitable
To ask for a conference in a note that
contained a hardly yelled charge of du-
plicity, of doctoring reports of experts
to suit political condition, of a lack
Of good faith in previous dealings, was
if Mr. Sherman is not in his dotage,
so palpable an affront, so certain to
call out a curt refusal, that it must
be presumed the secretary intended
such result, granting him a condi-
ton of mind yet capable of calculating
probabilities. But the request was
without merit, for the simple reason
that whatever default has been made
in carrying out the Paris agreement
is solely our own. Refusing to perform
our part, we are put in a sorry plight
by our truculent secretary by his re-
| quest that England perform her part.
To understand the position Of Eng
land let us assume that the Alabama
claims commission required England to
and also to perform some further act
| in conjunction with this country. What
| would have been our attitude should
| England, refusing to pay the award,
have asked this country to proceed
with her in carrying out the remaining
provisions? Even were such a request
rendered in language never more dip
| lomatic, our reply would have been
substantially to pay up or shut up"
This is the relative position Of the
| two nations. We were cast in damages
for the illegal seizure and confiscation
of vessels, lawfully engaged in pelagic
/ sealing, belonging to British subjects
residents of Canada. The amount was
left for mutual agreement, and was
agreed to be $425,OOO by the representa-
! tives of the two governments: The
agreement provided for the joint pa
trolling of. Boring sea for a period of
! five years to prevent Illicit sealing
| Congress absolutely refused to appro-
pirate the money, and still we have the
''manliness" to ask England to con-
tinue the patrol of the sea and the
/ preservation Of seals that on the land,
are our property, and on the high seas
are that Of any one who captures them.
| Under the circumstances it is clear
that, even were Secretary Sherman S
note couched in the language of dip
lomacy, England is justified in declin-
ing; and, couched as it was, the decli-
nation has doubled justification.