The Sonthland Times. FRIDAY, APRIL 19, 1872.

Southland Times, Issue 1565, 19 April 1872, Page 2

The Sonthland Times. FRIDAY, APRIL 19, 1872.

Furteer particulars of the Alabama question have been furnished by the Suez mail. The Peninsular and Oriental Company's steamer Bangalore sailed from Gafle on the evening of the 16th March, bringing London telegrams to the 10th of March. The news which we publish to-day was brought to Lyttelton by a sailing vessel, which arrived there on the 17th. The AUiambra arrived at-Hokitika later in the afternoon, but brought' no additional information of any importance. It is stated that everybody, including the English. Ministers and Commissioners, believed that the American negociators had distinctly waived the claim for inferential damages, but that a further scrutiny of the Treaty revealed the astonishing fact that they had not been expressly excluded. Very slight " scrutiny," we imagine, would have sufficed to show this. The Commissioners could hardly have forgotten that when the Keve'rdy Johnson Treaty, which did not include these claims for losses arising indirectly from the acts of the escaped cruisers, was refused ratification by the American Senate, Mr Summer delivered the famous speech which first familiarised the American mind with the doctrine of inferential damages, which he assessed at the modest amount of four hundred millions sterling, more or less. In the American accounts of the framing of the Treaty, it is distinctly stated that the American Commissioners refused to waive this claim, while it also appears that they did not press the consideration of it on the Commission. It is also noteworthy that in the American " case," no attempt is made to assess these claims at a definite sura. "While they are insisted on with the utmost elaboration of detail, even to a review of the relations of the two countries since the war of 18 L 2, no actual arithmetical estimate is attempted of the enormous indirect liability England is assumed to have incurred, and no further use is made of them than to urge on the Tribunal the propriety of awarding a lump sum in satisfaction of the American demand. This reticence is certainly remarkable, and encourages the idea that during the negotiation of the Treaty the English Commissioners had been led to believe that while it was hopeless to expect that a Treaty expresslyexcluding these claims would satisfy the American nation, or be ratified in the Senate, yet that no specific demand would be made on account of them. Only on some such supposition does the assent of the English Commissioners to the Treaty as it stands become intelligible. It is known that the question of the indirect losses bad been mooted in the Joint High i Commission, and it is simply incredible that the silence of the Treaty regarding them was not perceived by the English Commissioners. On the other hand, the American Government may hold that while the " case," as presented, is clearly within the wording of the Treaty, the good faith of the American Commissioners has been preserved by the absence of any specific demand — in figures — for the indirect losses. fieaßoning like this may satisfy politicians, but the common sense of both peoples will certainly make short work of it. The plain truth is, that tne Treaty i 8 understood by the American Government to mean one thing, and by the English Government, backed by the unanimous voice of the nation, quite another. The American people, on the other hand, seem far from unanimous in supporting the stand taken by their Government, many of the influential newspapers acknowledging the justice of the English view. The question of practical interest of course is simply, What will be the result? It seems clear that England will not consent to proceed with the arbitration unless the American claim for indirect damages be withdrawn. It seems equally clear that there is no probability ot the American Government making any such concession. Nor does there seem any reason why it should abandon a political position so advantageous, for a course which might seriously endanger its popularity. It follows, therefore, that the Treaty of Washington has not provided a solution of the difficulty. Nothing further, we think, can be determined with certainty. But the reasons which prevent the American Executive from assuming the responsibility of modi' fying the Treaty, are equally valid against a declaration of war with England. The susceptibilities of the American nation may be soothed by the undeniable diplomatic victory they have-gained, while the Alabama grievance will remain as useful as ever for party purposes at some future time. The terrible meaning of the word war has been learned, and cannot yet have been forgotten, in America ; and we may almost depend upon it that the initiative will not be taken by England. Still it is not a little remarkable that the results of this novel experiment in inter- | national dealing, undertaken in the interests of peace, have as yet only tended to show that the ultimate appeal is still the same as it has ever been in the history of nations — to the arbitration of tho sword. _