Year: 1872

entire subject of our dealings with England In
relation to the Alabama Treaty. While the
negotiations were in progress we forebOre TO
embalrass our Commissioners with undue dis
cussion Of the questions at issue. AS soon as
the Treaty was framed we were first to lay 1t
before the country, and to recommend It's
adoption, for which we endured the malicious
attacks of the ignorant and Over-zealous
partisans of the Government The inn
prisonment of our agents and the imper-
tinence of Administration Senators toward The
TRIBUNE did not in the least prevent our giving
a firm and consistent support to the Treaty.
until by its adoption and ratification the long
standing quarrel between the two foremost
nations of the civilized world seemed in way
of peaceful settlement. Even when our Case
was presented, and the press of England began
to murmur, and at last to break out into hys-
terical denunciation of our demands, we ex-
amined this much-abused document without
prejudice and always with an earnest
desire to see such an agreement ar
rived at as should be consistent
with the dignity and the interests of both
nations, which after all were not substantially
at variance We found document, perhaps
the most unfortunate in tone and temper that
ever issued from any Department of Foreign
Affairs. But we did not consider it our duty,
while the process was pending at Geneva, to
hold up for the derision of our own people and
the world, the errors and the weakness of our
own Government. The essential point to ex-
anime was simply this whether the class of
claims to which such violent objection was
made in England was excluded by the language
Al. 1xyf fha nf 10
We found that these claims were not so
excluded, that the "amicable settlement"
referred to in the protocol was not the arbtra-
ton upon which the Commissioners finally
agreed and that whatever might have been
the expediency of putting them into our Case,
and whatever the frighhul awkwardness by
which they were presented in the most offensive
manner possible, they were in the Case by that
negative right which consists in the absence of
any provision for their exclusion We therefore
held and still hold. that the Tribunal at Geneva
was the only power on earth competent to pass
upon them; that the attempt of Great Britain
to dictate to us what we should put in our
own plea was altogether inadmisslble; that
we should calmly await the verdict of the in
ternatiOnal tribunal if it were against us, that
we should submit, and if, before it was rem
dered, England should withdraw, that we
should call upon the court for decision pre-
cisely as if she had remained.


We are aware that this was not sound par
tisan policy. An opposition paper would have
seized this occasion to attack and embarrass a
hostile administration. But The TRIBUNE is
not sound partisan newspaper. Where the
interests of the country seem to come in con-
fct with those of any individual or any party,
there is no room for hesitation as to
what course to pursue. The American
Case, shockingly as it was presented, was
essentially justified by the Treaty. We took the
American side of the question because it was
the right one, and we propose to hold it for
the same reason. But the servile partisans of
the Administration seemed unable to stand
the storm of vituperation which beat upon
them from England and from timid sympa-
thizers with England here. The most nerve
less of its organs in New-YOrk suddenly ac-
cused Mr.. Sumner of having interpolated the
fatal clauses in the Case and incredibly absurd
and craven as was this suggestion, 1T found
echoes among the Administration press. Others
attempted to throw Mr. Bancroft Davis, who is
neither President nor Secretary of State, over
board as a tub to the English whale. The fear
of heavy weather seemed all at once to attack
and weaken the thickand-thn serving men
of the denomination party. This naturally
gave great comfort and encouragement to the
hard-pressed party leaders in England, who
redoubed their protestatiOns and menaces.
This reputation of the action of the Govern
ment grew so general in social circles in
Washington that it embOldencd the British
Minister to come to New-York and in o public
speech to declare that "nO one suppOses that
i" the British Commissioners ever had an idea
" that claims for indirect damages were ever
" included in the Treaty. If this is not di-
rect imputatiOn of bad faith to the Depart
ment of State, then words have no meaning.
Did those dozen diplomats sit at the same
table for month with their hands on their
lips and with cotton in their ears to keep
them from saying or hearing anything about
the most important question before them7
Sir Edward Thornton evidently thinks they
did, and intimates that Mr.. Fish Intentionally
kept up this regimen of silence for his own
ends. 1t is not possible that foreign minis
ter could make such public statement with
out being sure he would not be called to ac
count for it.


For several days past a sinister rumor has
circulated in this city and in Washington.
We regret TO say that there is good founda-
ton for the statement that The Administration