THE Otago Daily Times. MONDAY, JULY 8, 1872.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 3251, 8 July 1872, Page 2

THE Otago Daily Times. MONDAY, JULY 8, 1872.

We now know that the wretchedly compiled telegraphic summary of news which appeared in our issue of Saturday, failed to explain the real position in which the Alabama Question stood on the latest date of which we have advice. We are in possession of the Argus telegrams received by way of Galle, and a perusal of these enables us to make the gratifying announcement tliat a fair way has at last been prepared for the amicable settlement cf the long-standing difference between Great Britain and the United States on the subject of the Alabama claims. It would be well, however, to make clear the manner in which the negotiations which brought about this state of things have progressed. At a time when it was generally anticipated that the Washington Treaty would lapse, the British Government drafted a Supplementary Article excluding the indirect claims from the consideration of the Geneva Convention, and stipulating that neither power shouM hereafter claim consequential damages for neglect of neutrality. This compromise was accepted by President Grant, subject to ratification by the Senate. On the 23rd and 25th May, the Supplemental Article was debated in the Senate, and was ultimately agreed to with certain amendments by 42 votes to 9. On the 27th May, Mr Gladstone announced in the House of Commons that the English Cabinet was deliberating on the Senate's amendments to the Treaty. On a later date we notice that the English Government objected to those amendments as not distinctly expressing the withdrawal of the indirect claims, and that Mr Fish replied that further modifications would be unacceptable to the United States. On June 2nd, Mr Gladstone explained to the House of Commons that President Grant objected to formally withdraw the indirect claims, but was willing not to press them. He added that the negotiations then pending referred to the actual extent of future obligations, and that the law officers of the Crown- had advised that the prosecution of the indirect claims was precluded by the terms of the Supplementary Article. Two days later, Earl Russell's motion demanding that the Cabinet should suspend negotiations until the indirect claims were distinctly I

withdrawn, which had been postponed several times at the request of the Government, came on for discussion in the

House of Lorda. In the course of the

debate which ensued, Earl Gkanvillb said that if the Washington Treaty fulled, Great Britain would .still be inn better position before the world, having done her utmost for a settlement. He viewed Earl llussixl's motion as a question of want of confidence, inviting the abrogation of the Treaty. On June Oth, Earl Granville read a letter

from Genera! Schexck, enclosing a telegram from the United States Govern-

ment, giving an assurance that the consequential claims were abrogated under the Supplementary Article to the Treaty. General Schenck ako suited that the Senate's amendments, which the English Cabinet hesitated to accept, related to the definition of indirect claims- to J>e abandoned by England in future complications. Thin announcement was greeted with loud cheers, and Earl Russem/s motion was ,, ..withdrawn. After this explanation there apparently would l*j nothing to prevent the Arbitrators at Geneva from proceeding to examine and consider the question laid before them on behalf of the Governments of Great Britain and the United States respectively. Juno Istu was the date fixed on which the Tribunal was to meet for that purpose. The indirect claims having been abandoned, the Arbitrators, if they proceeded to consider the question on that date, would have been called upon, therefore, simply to decide whether Great Britain exercised due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming, or equipping of the Alabama, or of any of the ves-s :1s which were obtained by the Confederates from British ports during the civil war ; and should they have arrived at the conclusion that Great Britain did fail in her duty in that respect, they would then have to assess the actual loss which American shipowners sustained by reason of the depredations of those vessels.

It must be acknowledged that although Mr Glvd.stonk's Government have been justly held to blame for not having taken care, in the first instance, that the Treaty of Wash ing ton should preclude, in clear and unambiguous language, the possibility of claims for consequential damages beingpreferred, great praise is due to the Ministry for the firm attitude which they maintained from the time it was- first intimated that the American case included claims of that character. While all Englishspeaking communities throughout the world will heartily rejoice at the happy settlement of those differences, which at one time almost threatened, to disturb the peaceful relations which have so long existed between the United States and Great Britain, Mr Gladstone will not unnaturally look to the successful termination of his recent negotiations with the American Government as a reason why the Parliament and people of Great Britain should renew their confidence in an Administration whose popularity has for some time past been rapidly waning.