Year: 1872

The correspondent of the New York
Times gives the following as the position
of the government on the Washington
Treaty:


WASHINGTON, May 6.-The country
hardly needs to be reassured that the stuff
which is being telegraphed from this city
in regard to the treaty is mere speculation
and guess work, and that words are put in
TO the mouths of people which they never
uttered, and that invention is the staple of
certain class of correspondents in this
city, who pay more attention to the stock
market than they do to the facts. The sit
uatlOn is not materially changed, and
there are no new features in it warranting
any belief of new dangers. On the contra
ry, the position of this Government on the
subject is one which, when all the cores
pOndence is made public will be warmly
approved by the people. There no back
down, 10 withdrawal. There is an earnest
effort to save the treaty, but ther has
been no suggestion or proposition from
this side to settle the question outside of
the Geneva Tribunal. 1t has been sug-
gested to the British Government that this
Government does not desire a money
award for consequential damages; only a
settlement of the principle involved, In
return Great Britain has made a PROPOSE
ton involving the settlement of the ques-
ton outside the tribunal, and indi-
eating that it expects the withdrawal of
the claims as a consequence. But this has
been declined, because the American Cab
met has no power as has the English Cab
met, to define and establish principle of
law for the observance of the two nations
in the future, simply because the Senate
must consent, under the Constitution, to
Tatify such an agreement. If the British
Government should propose new article
to the treaty, to settle this question, it
would be gravely considered by this Gov
ernment and, if the concession was suffi-
GENTLY clear, it would doubtless be ratified.
But there will be no settlement without
uch concession as will settle the point in
volved for all future time.


The Tribune has Il strong editorial OH
Tuesday, supporting the claim of our
government, the closing paragraph of
which read rs follows:


We hold our Government clearly i'll the
right in refusing to withdraw or modify its
case at the dictation Of the adverse party.
In taking this position, we do not assert
the validity and justice or the disputed
claim, nor affirm the necessity or wisdom
of making it. The former proposition APP
pcdlS W bIlG dIDllCIO JIIC ltIUSI IIIoJ 1dloC
an issue between our Government and our
people, not between them and Great Brit
ain.


Familiarly, the case is this: Jones and
Brown have q quarrel, resulting i'll a law
suit, which they agree to arbitrate on GER
tain specified conditions. Going before the
arbiter accordingly, Jones' being plaintiff,
states the grounds and the amount Of his
claim. Brown replie6-"NO sir | never
agreed to submit to arbitration on
such claims as those Jones reioins:
"There is the agreement, in plain black
and white; here is the arbiter; / submit to
him the question whether you did or did
not so agree, and offer to abide by his de-
cisiOn Throughout NO." says Brown;
"either you withdraw this claim or [ will
not submit to the arbitration at alln Is
not this demand by Brown that he be al
lowed to prescribe to Jones what he shall
and what he shall not submit to the arbi-
term effect, that he be allowed to make
up both sides of the case? Is not the re-
joinder obvious-"If I claim what the
agreement to aTbitTate does not warrant,
the arbiter will so decide ?"


Let no one be alarmed by the cry of
war. There will be no war Oh this ques
tion-there is no excuse for hOstilities. If
Great Britain does not wish to close this
controversy, we can wait. Let there be
no needless irritation, but quiet tirmness
in maintaining our rights.