THE WASHINGTON TREATY.

Westport Times, Volume V, Issue 844, 1 August 1871, Page 3

THE WASHINGTON TREATY.

In our opinion, says the " Times," the treaty is a good one, and ought to be ratified. We believe that neither in the Lords nor in the Commons could any successful opposition be made to it. But it contains stipulations of the very highest importance and novelty, just such as may afford material for endless criticism, and encourage those purposeless motions which aro brought forward all the more readily wheu they lead to nothing, and only give the opportunity for ingenious cavilling. A hasty ratification is quite a mine of argument to the class of critics to which we refer, for they can always urge that Parliament would never have consented to that of which they complain, and that it now refuses to listen to their rhetoric only because the evil is irremediable. If a treaty lies on the table of tho House of Commons for a reasonable time, and no opposition is made to it, or the opposition fails, then everyone must admit that it has been accepted by the nation. If it is really objectionable, then Parliament has the opportunity of saving the nation from obligations it would not willingly undertake and would always chafe under. . The " Morning Post " recapitulates the points given up by the English Government in this Treaty. In general terms Me may say every peint that has been defended for the last nine years by successive foreign ministers. To come to particulars, however, the Treaty starts by making this country express " regret" for the escape of the Alabama. There is no great objection to be made to this, for it is the statement of a fact, though something might be said as to the form in which it has been put and the place it is made to hold in the Treaty. The extraordinary part of the document is that which regulates the manner of arbitrating, and by its adoption the English Government has practically pledged this country to pay an unascertained, but certainly a very heavy indemnity for the escape of the vessel. Lord Eussell, Lord Clarendon, and Lord Stanley always contended that we had in effect fulfilled our engagements, that we had taken all human means to put our laws into force, and that we were consequently neither legally nor morally responsible. Moreover, it was urged that in most cases we had succeeded : .in preventing the issue of Confederate privateers from our ports, that in the instance of the Birkenhead rams we had even gone beyond our obligations in buying when we found that by law we could not stop them, aud that therefore we had abundantly proved our good faith. Lord Eussell did, indeed, in the first instance, refuse abitration, but it was upon a technical objection, and not from fear of its results. There has been much suspicion about the escape of the Alabama, and both the writings in the press and the utterances of our public men in and out of Parliament haye thrown an air of guilt over the Government which existed at the time; but the facts do nevertheless prove conclusively that they did all they could, and it is all but certain that if any arbitration were taken upon the point, England would be entirely cleared of any failure to fulfil her obligations as they existed at the tiino the question aroso. That was what the Americans always felt; that wa3 why they imported into the matter tho irrelevant point of tho Queen's proclamation; and that is why they have always refused to allow the Alabama claims to bo jndged by an impartial tribunal on their own merits.