Year: 1872

difficulties have arisen from mutual mlsun-
derstanding between the two nations as 10 each
others position. If we admit this to be true'
il becomes at once q matter of great lmpof-
tance that this misunderstanding shall not
continue, but that the Government and people
of each country shall be given in every posi-
ble way clear comprehension of the claims
of the other, on the merits OF the case rs
well as under the provisions of the treaty
TO this work of enlightenment, our CORE
spondent in London, George w. Smalley, esq
has devoted the concise and pertinent letter
to The Times which we reproduce to-day
lie shows that the universal impression III
America, after the conclusion of the Treaty,
was that the proposition OF the United states
for lump sum and summary amlcaDle set-
tlement having been rejected by England, the
Treaty, as adopted, threw us back upon all
orr reserved rights in the premises, and ad-
mitted us to the Board of Arbitration with no
further restriction rs to the classes OF claims
we were to present than those contained III
the text of the Treaty itself. His converse
tions with prominent men who had assisted In
the framing of the document proved this; and
f was still more strongly shown by the
universal acceptance of the Treaty through-
out the country, by the press and by puDnc
on;nion, on the ground that it relinauished none
of our claims, but referred the whole matter to
the Board of Arbitration. If it were possible
for our Commissioners and the Senate and the
President TO unite in a dishOnorable game 10
deceive England by saying nothing about their
real intentions, it is impossible to imagine
that this stratagem could have been kept up
by the nation. AS Mr. Smalley expresses It,,
Forty millions of people cannot enter INTO a
conspiracy of silence"


This view Of the case is forcing itself upon
the attention of the better class of English
journals, and has its effect upon all ex-
pressions of public opinion. The Times, In a
careful editorial founded upon Mr.. Smalley's
letter, admits that there was no foundation
for Mr.;GladstOne's implied charge of insin-
cerity against the Government of the United
States, and discusses the entire question with
admirable spirit and temper. 1t makes, how
ever, the mistake, which is not unusual even
with well-infomed people in Europe, OF attach
ing undue impOrtanceto the violentutterances or
a New York paper which never weighs Its words,
and inferrng from later articles III the same
journal, that there has been reaction Ill
American opinion upon this subject. There is
no reaction, because there has been no excite
ment. The great bulk of thinking people
stand now precisely where they stood at the
time of the first outbreak of English indigna-
ton. We accepted the Treaty, as a fair and
equal means of putting an end to an annoy
ing and injurious controversy. II was the
only means which seemed accessible of OBJ
tanning upon all the questions at issue
the decision of court which might
fairly be presumed to convey the Judgment of
the civilized world upon the points involved.
However this high international tribunal might
decide, its verdict would be invested with u
sanction too powerful to admit of appeal.
With few exceptions, the people of the United
States approved this final and defnitive refer
ence. Our Government laid before the Board
of Arbitration the full statement of its case
and its claims without reserve and without
exaggeratiOn. This plea was conveyed to the
English Cabinet and for several weeks pro-
voked no especial excitement. But the news
papers, one by one, began to attack the
American case, and Just as Parliament
opened-thOugh The London Times insists that
partisan feeling had no influence upon the
manifestation-the leader OF the opposition
eoaded Mr.. Gladstone into an Incorporate and
indiscreet speech, indirectly impugning the
good faith of the American Government in its
Interpretation of the Treaty. AS o further
proof that party spirit is not entirely absent
from the criticisms of the Treaty, it may be
stated that Lord Malmesbury, on the same day
in which The Times published this article, severely
censured the Government in the House Of Lords,
"first, for having sent Commission to Wash
"ington, and second, for having selected i'm
"promptu diplomatists as its members" Amid
all this explosion of surprise and anger in En-
gland, there was no corresponding excitement
in the United States. We proposed to stand
by the Treaty, and abide by its decision, leav-
ing exclusively to England the responsibility
of Withdrawing from it. Among newspapers
and Congressman of self-respect, the question
was discussed with entire cOoness and
the few journals and politicians who
answered the English Outburst with hOwls of
defiance met with immediate and universal
expressions Of contempt. The impression was
general among all parties and all factions, that
this was a situation in which We were too
strong for any excitement or clamor There
has been no effort of any consequence to make
political capital of the incident. All parties
demand of the Administration that it shall not
recede from the ground which is regarded as
justified by facts, and by the letter and spirit
of the Treaty and the Protocol.


We sincerely hope that the apprehcnsions of
the English Press will not prove to be just.
We should regret to see England withdraw
from method of settlement sought by her
self, arranged with patient care on both sides,
and joyfully accepted as a fnality by both.
Because if England Should Withdraw. and the