Year: 1871

We may fairly hope that we have turned
new page in the history of our relations with
Great Britain. The exchange of ratitications
of the Treaty of Washington in London closes
the history of a series of negotiations perhaps
without parallel in diplomatic annals. Ten years
have passed since the outbreak of our national
conflict ten years since England first openly
evinced the desire of her ruling classes Tor the
disruption of the Union; nearly ten since
British anger at the seizure of the Trent was
so cunningly inhamed by Lord Palmer
ston as almost to provoke a war be-
tween England and the North. And
it is about nine years since the
Alabama" built in the eclipse, and rugged
"with curses dark "-stole out of Liverpool to
carry havoc among American vessels the
world over, and to plant the seeds of Bit
terness which only now is rooted out and cast
away to perish let us beieve-fOrever.


We hail the consummation with joy we
do not care to conceal We have won, as the
English themselves are frank to admit, con-
siderable triumph but it is not in the spirit
of triumph that we welcome the completion of
this Treaty. 1t is enough for us to know that
the honor and the interests OF our country
have been perfectly guarded in the negotia-
tions that ended in the Treaty, and that they
are amply secured in the Treaty itself. That
is a rightful subject of congratulatlon'
Beyond that is the conviction that a
settlement has been reached which marks
distinct stage in the progress of international
law, and, we shall venture to add, of civiliza-
ton. The Alabama question was of kind
which half a century ago could scarcely have
been settled without war. AT the risk OF
woundng just national pride, we shall
say that the real credit of averting
that calamity belongs not to us but
TO the English. For the first time in
the history of modern nations, England has
shown herself great enough to offer an
apology not extOrted by military defeat. For
the first time in the history of diplomacy, a
confession of wrong and declaration of
regret have been embodied in a Treaty.
England has a right to be proud of her mag


nanimity we have a right to be proud that
SO great an act was done in our behalf, and
that England thus puts on record her admis-
sion of the business of the remonstrance that
we long urged unavallingly.


OF course, we have not got all we wanted.
No nation ever did, whether by treaty without
war or by war ending, as all wars must, in
| treaty. A treaty is a compromise, and COM
promise involves concession, and we have con-
ceded some things which we thought should
have been conceded to u.s. Three years ago
we might have had better treaty. There
was time when it was possible to obtain
from England an absolute admission for her
liability in respect of the damages done by
the Alabama and her consorts. She was ready
to admit the liability and to go before a
tribunal charged only with determining the
amount and validity of each separate claim.
So urged Mr. John Stuart Mil in the House of
Commons, and Lord Stanley, then Foreign
Minister, sat by consenting while Mr. Mill put
| that construction upon the words Lord
Stanley had just uttered. Prompt diplomacy
would have secured us that, and would
have made treaty embracing in the first
place the Alabama Claims only, leaving British
claims to be considered after Guns had been
adudicated and paid. But instead of diplo-
macy came that eralof good feeling which Mr.
Reverdy johnson inaugurated, followed by the
disastrous breakdown which brought on an era
of feeling not good but the contrary, and
which threatened at one time to land us IN
n war. That sad history is only
worth referring TO as proof how
much we have now to be thankful for. and ai