734

T H E T A B L E T .

[Saturday, June 1 5> 1872.

may not dictate the President’s future course in the matter, j and crystallize reluctance into obstinate refusal. This, however, if adjournment there is to be, is a necessary risk, for 1 it appears that the American Government objects to summoning the Senate specially for the purpose of ratifying the treaty.

THE OTHER PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE

TREATY.

In answer to several questions as to the fate of the rest of the treaty, should the arbitration fall through, Mr. Gladstone at first stated merely that, if an adjournment took place, it would have no effect on the other proceedings. But the point pressed by Mr. Disraeli and Mr. McCullagh Torrens was, Whether the settlement of the other questions could go on if the Alabama claims remained unsettled; and Mr. Gladstone was obliged to admit that the American Government contended that the whole of the treaty must stand or fall together. He did not think he should be justified in saying more, but he said quite enough to indicate the possibility of a fresh interminable controversy.

A D a i ly N ew s telegram, dated Wednesday

THEAPPLiCA- —an(j these telegrams have hitherto proved a r b it r a t o r s . correcf—professes to give Lord Granville’s final

instructions to Lord Tenterden, as communicated to General Schenck. The agent is instructed to inform the arbitrators that the differences are not yet removed, and that “ her Majesty’s Government respectfully requests “ the Tribunal to adjourn for such period as will enable a “ Supplementary Convention to be concluded and ratified.” In the meantime, there being no agreement as to the subject-matter of the reference, they are unable to put in their written argument, though it is ready and in the hands of the agent. The Court is tounderstand that the English Government, while considering “ the Tribunal to have full “ power to proceed at the end of the period of the adjourn“ ment, if the difference between the high contracting parties “ has then been removed, notwithstanding the non-delivery “ of the argument by the British agent, will continue, while “ requesting this adjournment, to reserve all her Majesty’s “ rights in the event of an agreement [?not]being finally arrived “ at, in the same manner as expressed in the note which “ accompanies the British Counter Case.” That this note, if genuine, will give rise to new and very severe criticism is certain. The Tim es was so unprepared for anything of the kind that on Thursday morning it declared that “ the “ arbitrators cannot vary the procedure of the arbitration, “ except by the joint directions of the two parties before them; “ and if we could make the application alone, we should be “ properly told that it could not be granted. But we could “ not even safely make the application, for though the “ arbitrators would repudiate the authority it imputed to “ them, our application would commit us to an acknow“ ledgment that they possessed it.” Yet, if this telegram is correct, the application is to be made alone, and not only so, but our right to put in a further argument is waived altogether. I f the lime for the Court’s assembling was to be stretched, one would think that the term for delivering the argument, which was identical with and dependent on the other term, might be stretched also. We have, in fact, conceded everything; we make our respectful application alone, and we refrain from puttiag the declaration which has been objected to. At the same time the Americans refuse to help us out of the hobble. Congress has adjourned, the President and Mr. Fish have gone away for their holidays, very much, as the Times puts it, like “ a man” “ who “ turns on his heel while a suitor stands hat in hand be“ before him." The state of things almost justifies Mr. Torrens’s extraordinary motion that the Commons should go into Committee of the whole House and take the negotiations into their own hands, though, when his notice was given, the news of a separate application had not arrived.

The Republican Convention, which has just

the two been held at Philadelphia, has nominated Geneplatiorms. raj ( j rant for re-election as President unanimously, and Senator Wilson, of Massachusetts, for the post of Vice-President, after a ballot in which the other competitors were Messrs. Colfax ; Davis, of T e xa s ; and Lewis, of Virginia. The “ platform ” adopted at this Convention seems to be intended to take the wind out of Mr. Greeley’s sails ; at least we have a demand for civil service reform, and the abolition of corporation land grants, as well as the raising of the revenues from excise and import duties, the latter being so adjusted as to aid in securing remunerative wages for labour, or, in mother words, protective tariffs. Several

j of the Republican journals which are at the same

time Free-traders, are considerably and not unnaturally annoyed at their party being thus committed to Protection. They would not, however, be much better off under Mr. Greeley’s llag, as far as he personally is concerned, but his adherents have hit upon an ingenious mode of walking round the difficulty arising from the fact that they are themselves for the most part Free-traders, while their candidate has always been an ardent Protectionist. The question is, W the Cincinnati platform, expressly reserved to Congress and guarded against the President’s interference, and he must neither over-rule the action of the people’s representatives by his veto, nor must he attempt to dictate or presume to punish by withholding or withdrawing office from those who disagree with him. Budget-making is in fact to be taken out of the hands of the President, and consequently of his Ministers, in order that a Protectionist President may be carried by a Free-trade party—a curious instance, if the proposal were adopted, of constituent legislative action being resorted to in order to get out of a particular and accidental embarrassment. In the letter in which Mr. Greeley recapitulates and accepts the “ planks ” of the Cincinnati platform, he explains the crusade against land grants to railway companies as intended not only to save the land for cultivation, but to discourage the construction of unnecessary railroads and the consequent increase of “ foreign indebtedness.” The practice of subventionizing new railways by grants to the companies of alternate slips of land on each side of the whole length of the line, has for sometime past been a favourite subject for criticism, and both of the rival parties have now pronounced against it. But the most salient feature of Mr. Greeley’s programme is a universal amnesty to the Southerners ; the largest possible amount of individual liberty and State rights consistent with the safety of the Constitution; and, in order that the civil service reform may be “ real and not “ simulated," a rule inexorably forbidding the re-election of any President; a prescription scarcely likely to be effectual, inasmuch as the Civil Service, as the Times justly remarks, continuously declined for many years during which no President was re-elected. The remedy is to be found in a permanent Civil Service rather than in a non-re-eligible President. Save in the points we have mentioned, there is nothing distinctive in either of the platforms.

The Irish Court of Common Pleas has

T= v seated Captain Trench for Galway, on the

ground that Captain Nolan was already, at the time of the election, disqualified by his acts, and that the votes given for him were thrown away. This was the judgment of Judges Lawson, Morris, and Keogh, Lord Chief Justice Monahan dissenting, and observing that there was no instance of an unsuccessful candidate being seated in consequence of undue influence exercised by his opponent. It was decided, however, that the intimidation used on behalf o f Captain Nolan was publicly known, and that the notices to the electors posted by Captain Trench’s agents in the polling booths made the notoriety so complete that the electors were bound to act upon it. We suppose the decision is all right in law, but to electors not over-endowed with selfconfidence it must be rather a startling one. Are we, they will ask, to try in fo r o in te r io r i and arrive at a correct judgment on such hostile allegations against our favourite candidate, on pain of losing the franchise ? Or are we to give him up on the mere accusation, and perhaps throw away our votes on somebody who has a worse chance, when it may turn out, after all, that the disqualification cannot be substantiated?

On Friday last week the House of Lords THE passed the Licensing Bill through committee b i l l . ° with inconsiderable amendments. The Duke

of Richmond made an attempt to bring grocers selling wine under all the restrictions of the Act as regards a certificate from the magistrates, hours of closing, and police supervision; but Lord Kimberley stated that, though grocers’ licenses were naturally unpopular with the publicans, they' had been found a convenience to the public, and productive of no disorder; and the matter was compromised by the Duke consenting to give up the point of the certificate, while Lord Kimberley promised to extend to the grocers supervision as regards early closing and adulteration. After a bold proposal from Lord Grey to adopt the system in operation at Gothenburg— i.e ., to abolish the publicans, and sell all intoxicatingliquors on the public account— the bill was reported with amendments, and we may reasonably hope to have done with the subject for the present.