Year: 1872




We publish to-day the correspondence be-
tween our government and that of England
with regard to the disputed point about the
Alabama claims. The President sent brief
message to the Senate with this corre-
spondence, to show his object in referring
the matter to that body before concluding
upon the basis of settlement. To use his
own language, he seeks the counsel of the SEN
ate in advance of agreeing TO the proposal of
Great Britain which was last made for set
Element of the difficulty, and in doing SO cites
the example of his predecessors for this appa-
rently unusual proceeding.


The first despatch is that of Lord Granville
to Mr. Schenck, dated February 3, 1872 In
this he passes over minor matters and at once
proceeds to notice what he terms certain
claims of an enormous and indefinite amount
which appear to have been put forward as
matters to be referred to arbitration,
meaning the claim for consequential
or indirect damages. Earl Granville
argues, as was known before, that this claim
was not anticipated and would not be admit
ted. Letter two is mere formal one from
MIR. Schenck to Lord Granville, stating that
warded to Washington. Then follows letter
from Mr.. Fish to Mr.. Schenck, . with
another addressed and to be delivered
to Lord Granville. In this letter of
Mr.. Fish to Lord Granville the question Of
agreeing to the payment of gross sum to
oil tt,a c1o md x1ikhO fho oktn nf
third party, is referred to- Mr. Fish says
that the President would not have consented
to Commission to make treaty if he
had not understood that all claims
of whatever kind were to be the subject of set
Element that he was willing to abide by the
decision Of the arbitrators, whether any of the
claims should be admitted or rejected, and
that the President regretted the action of the
British government in objecing to such
settlement This is firm and
stiff note though couched in the usual
smooth diplomatic language. Throughout it
is apparent that our government did not ex-
pect to get the enormous damages which
Lord Granville seemed to fear were expected,
and that the object in submitting the claim
for consequential damages was more with
view OF leaving nothing unsettled and to show
what opinion had been held Of the conduct Of
England


All the dispatches that follow, except the
last one Of the British government with the
proposition submitted to the Senate are only
a retention Of the same points and arguments
which have been published heretofore The
substance we have known and discussed, and
though we have now the whole in diplomatic
phraseology there is nothing new. The de-
spateh Of Lord Granville of the goth Of March
is very elaborate and is fine speci-
men Of that special pleading for
which the statesmen of England
are distinguished In this respect our Sec
retary Of State and representative in London
were overmatched. The truth is we should
always avoid diplomatic ambiguity in our
intercourse with foreign nations, and conse-
quently such diplomatic tilts with the ex-
perienced and cunning old statesmen Of
| Europe. If our government had said
in plain and unmistakable language
what it meant in the Treaty of
Washington oil this trouble would have been
avoided. The claim for consequential damages
was left to be inferred, when it ought to have
been clearly expressed.


The last movement on the board to save the
treaty, which is creating just now 80 much
interest in Washington and London, and
which led to the special consultation of the
President with the Senate, seems to have
originated with Mr.. Fish, though it is said the
proposition involved in it came from England.
This proposition is substantially as given in
our Washington correspondence on Monday
and reiterated in the correspondence published
yesterday 1t is, in effect, that there shall be
short supplemental treaty in addition to the
Washington Treaty, in which declaration
shall be made that hereafter when either
! Great Britain or tho United States
are at war, the other Power being neutral, the
neutral shall only be liable for the direct dam
ages inflicted upon the belligerent by any pri-
vateer escaping from its waters. 1t is under.
stood that this rule incorporated or added to
the treaty would be SO far retroactive as to de-
stroy any claim of the United States for con.


sequential damages, and would relieve Great


Britain OF her objection to arbitration before
the Geneva Board. This is what the leading
London journals meant when they asserted


that negotiations were not broken off positively


and that new proposition was under consider
alton by which the American government
agrees in principle to withdraw the claim for
indirect damages. Agreeing in principle, b,
the supplemental treaty, while the American
case remains unaltered, is just the meaning O
the proposed arrangement to bridge over the
difficulty. This is, after all, another bunglinl
way of managing great international affairs
The whole question of neutmls might
just as well have been left out Of
the treaty and payment have been made
for tha diract 1oSeas causad hv the