The Guardian has inserted two almost confessedly official defences of
the Treaty of Washington, written with great elegance and some force, and which are universally ascribed to a learned member of the Washington Commission. They show, to our minds, very conclusively indeed what the true construction of the Treaty of Washington is, making, for instance, one very import- ant point,—that the first article of the Treaty describes its object as being " to remove and adjust all complaints and claims," &c., 4‘ growing out of acts committed by the said vessels, and generically known as the Alabama claims," and that no claims ever had been so recognized and referred to in the diplomatic documents of the two Governments except the direct claims. That may be true, and we are fully persuaded that the weight of argument in favour of the British interpretation is altogether overwhelming. But that is no defence for leaving to the operation of a chain of in- ferences, however strong, what would have been put beyond doubt by an explicit article—the only conceivable objection to which must have been that it would challenge public opposition in the Senate or elsewhere. But if there was any fear of the Senate not apprehending the real drift of the Treaty, we were as much bound to open their eyes, rather than snatch an advantage from them, as General Schenck and the American Government were bound to open our eyes when they understood that our interpretation of the Treaty was quite different from theirs. And if there was no reasonable chance of the Senate misunderstanding the true drift, how is it that it has been misunderstood?
