IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) / ///V ^ A (i6 ''? 1.0 I.I 11.25 2.5 " |3.2 " 1^ lllllio .. „. IIIIIM 1.8 U llllli.6 V .% CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductlons historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly chanp9 the usual method of filming, are checlced below. L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details deT cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique. qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la methods normale de filmage sont indiquds ci-dessous. D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur D D D Covers damaged/ Couverture endommag6e Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur6e et/ou pellicuiie Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommagies □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaur6es et/ou pellicul6es □ Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages ddcolor^es, tachet^es ou piqudes □ Coloured maps/ Cartes g6ographiques en couleur □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) i? Pages detached/ Pages d6tach6es I I Showthrough/ Transparence D Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur □ Quality of print varies/ Quality in6gale de I'impression D Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents □ Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel suppl^mentaire D D Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int6rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout6es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmies. D D Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponibie Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 filmdes d nouveau de faqon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. D Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl6mentaires: This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqu<& ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X I 17X 16X 20X ist 28X 32X ■^^tert-y ■■-•)^^ aire i details lues du t modifier iger une ) filmage The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanl i w>i*j)iw»uiMi i i J u i jiuc- \ \- ^ V COMMON SENSE. ffi^^^IFFERENCES have arisen between iSKi^Vl Great Britain and the United States, which are rapidly drifting the two na- tions into a war. I am confident that the American Government and people not only all desn-e no such result, but will look upon it as the greatest calamity which can befall them. I am equally confident that the issue will be unanimously accepted if forced upon them. In the hope of contributing even in the smallest degree, towards averting what would be a catastrophe to the civilized world, I submit for candid considera- tion a few facts, I am sure that it will be conceded that the language of the Treaty of Washington is ambiguous. If it be claimed with Mr. Gladstone that there is no ambi- guity, and that therefore the American claims are absurd, that is an end of both reasoning and reason For the position assails the good faith of the American Government in presenting a statement which it I 4 Common Sense. assumes must have been known to bo without the limits of the Treaty. An influential part of the English press concedes that the American position is tenable. The " Times " aid the " Pall Mall Gazette," each has repeatedly insisted upon this. Even the " Daily News " says : — " It is admitted that the terms employed have a regrettable ambiguity." Lord Cairns, Lord Derby, and other statesmen have, with equal candor, assented to this. On the other hand, I take it that reasonable Ameri- cans will concede with equal fairness that there is much to be said in favour of the British construction of the Treaty and Protocols. It is plain, therefore, on this assumption that a misunderstanding exists between the governments which can only be decided either by mutual agreement or by a reference to the language of the Treaty, before an influential tribunal. Now, as to the first mode of settlement, reflecting persons cannot fail to see that after the irritating, and I think I may say, ill-judged (if a peaceful solution be the object), language of the London press, it is abso- lutely impossible for the American Government to concede that it has been mistaken. Lest, however, I should be misunderstood, I ought to add, that in the judgment of all the Americans whom I have met, as well as in my own judgment, our government is right and ought not to retract until a competent tribunal decides that it is wrong ; and I may further say, that the assent of two-thirds of the Senate having been I hout the concedes 'Times" speatcdly ' says :— have a d Derby, assented e Ameri- tliere is istruction ;hcrefore, ng exists > decided 3e to the tribunal. reflecting ting, and dution be is abso- timent to owever, I at in the e met, as it is right tribunal say, that ing been Common Sense. 6 given to the Treaty in its present form, the Executive cannot without a similar assent, consent to what will practically amount to a modification or change in that instrument. If the case were reversed, is it likely that the assent of two-thirds of the Mouse of Commons could be obtained to a similar modification. Then, as to the second mode of settlement — the re- ference of the dispute to Geneva— I understand that the United States arc willing to abide by the decision of that tribunal. If I am mistaken our American colony in London cannot too strongly condemn the government at Washington. Is there any reason why it should not be referred there ? I take it that neither party has any doubt of the justice of the tribunal. If a tribunal selected with such care from different nationalities cannot deal with so simple a question as this, there is much more reason why the complicated and difficult questions beyond it should be removed from them. I therefore dismiss this idea also as untenable and absurd. Nor is there anything dishonourable to either party in such a submission. The Government of the United States is understood to contemplate such a submission as the natural result of the Treaty. Her Majesty's Government cannot think it dishonourable to do the same thing. For, be it remembered, both Her Ma- jesty's Government and the Government of the United States are at this moment before the Emperor of Germany in an arbitration in which the sole question a2 6 Conumm Sen^e. tor tlio (k'cision of tlio arbitriitor is tlio intcrprotatioTi of a 'J'roaty, which intorprotation is subniittod for his decision by this sanio Treaty of Wasliiiij^ton. And wo learn from the protocols of tlie Joint IIingland to submit this question with the others to the Geneva Tribunal? If it be supposed that the United States do not present the claims in good faith, there may certainly be some reason for supposing that it may be disiionour- able to do so. But the mere suspicion of bad faith closes the door to discussion. It is only just to say that the great mass of British statesmen and writers are not so deluded as to entertain such an opinion. In the absence of such an idea, I do not see how it can be claimed that the submission of such a question to arbitration is derogatory to the honour of a nation. The conduct of Great Britain, or of her Government, is not involved, except as it may be involved in the ■) 8 Commou Scni^p. jToncral discussion upon the merits of tl.J whole case. If there be no liability for "claims" growing? out of the acts of any <>f the vessels, it is entirely unimportant whether these particular classes of claims are or are not within the submissicm. If, on the otiier hand, the arbitrators should arrive at the conclusion that the acts of one or more vessels render Cireat Britain liable to the United States, the question (in the further and more remote contintfency of their finding that the liability extends to the indirect damages) would be purely a pecuniary one, involving no point of honour. I therefore assume that it cannot be seriously con- tended that Great Britain may not honourably do towards the United States, nigarding the Treaty of Washington, what she insisted that the United States should do towards her regarding the Treaty of 1846. 1 will not violate good taste and fair dealing by discussing the probable result of such a reference. It may be said, however, without impropriety, that it will be incumbent on the United States to establish — Ist. Tiiat the disputed classes of claims are within the terms of the submission. 2nd. That Great Britain is responsible for the losses growing out of the acts of this, that, or the other cruiser, after a thorough con- sideration of the evidence adduced as to each cruiser. :3rd. That the losses involved in these disputed claims can be specifically brought home to the particular cruisers, for whose acts Great Britain is found liable. Any sensible man can determine for himself the pro- bability of the concurrence of three such events. tl T vhole caao. inff out of limportant are or are ' hand, the 1 that the itain liahle irthcr and f that the would he of honour, ously con- )urably do Treaty of itcd States ^ of 1846. dealing by 'rence. It that it will blish — Ist. within the sat Britain the acts of rough con- ich cruiser, ited claims particular lund liable. If the pro- ^ents. Common Sense. {) The tone of the London Press in the dis^cussion of these delicate questions has not always been as judicious as could be desired. It is not impossible that wo may hear responses in the same spirit from tiie other side of the Atlantic. It is to be hoped that the Govern - nients which are charged with the maintenance of peace, will disregard all intemperate expressions of individual views, and will aim to meet the issues animated by a desire to prevent war. Unless they are animated by such a desire it is but too probable that war may be the result. The idea seems to prevail in England that the Continental press sustains the London press in its avowal that the arbitration must fall through unless the United States withdraws its claims for indirect damage. I believe that opiniim to be a mistake, and quote a few extracts from various journals to show tliat I have reason for my opinion. ^' " If it had not been for the attitude of Messrs. " Cobden and Bright, and the wisdom and self-denial " of the working classes of Lancashire, the old English " aristocracy would have willingly contributed to the " dismemberment of a Republic whose pow er had for a " long time been a source of annoyance to it. But " even this wisdom, which has prevented the old " governing classes in England from compromising " their country by some adventure akin to that which " led Imperial France to Mexico, deserves, on the " part of America, some consideration and a feeling *' of gratitude. Thus there have been on both sides T I 10 Common Sense. •' reciprocal wrongs, aggravated at this moment by " patriotic passions and by manoeuvres of parties in " both countries. This is as true with regard to " England, where the Tories endeavour to work to " their own advantage the embarrassments they have " helped to create, as with regard to the United States, " where the policy of recrimination may become a " lever in the approaching campaign against the re- " election of Mr. Grant to the presidential chair. The " wisest thing for the people and governments of the " two countries to do in this situation is, to refer the " matter to the arbitration of the Tribunal of Geneva. " This Tribunal has no interest in the debate, and is " much better able, therefore, than the parties inte- " rested, to restore peace and harmony between them." — Indepemlruice Beige, February 1, 1S72. " We cannot see how England can make any re- *' servations now on the nature of certain claims " which have always been urged, nor on the compe- " tence of the Tribunal proposed by herself to decide *' the questions which may be brought before it on *' her own request. This point is already conceded " by one of the leading London journals, the ' Pall " Mall Gazette.' It is equally clear that the English " Government must be of the same opinion : but in " the presence of an unforeseen agitation, is it not " being urged towards raising a difficulty which, by " putting in doubt this great matter, will compromise " the peace of the world to a serious degree.'' — Memorial Diplomatique, February 3, 1872. r Common Sense. 11 noment by parties in regard to to work to they have iteJ States, become a nst the re- chair. Tlie lents of the to refer the of Geneva. )ate, and is arties inte- een them." ,ke any re- gain chiims the com pe- lf to decide efore it on [y conceded , the 'Pall the Enijlisli ion : but in 11, is it not f which, by compromise degree.'' — '' Neither in the course of the discussions of " the Joint High Commission, whicii lasted two " months, nor in any of tlie clauses of the Treaty " for determining the j)roceedings and the powers " of the Tribunal of Arbitration, as well as the prin- " ci})les which should guide it in its decisions, did " England raise the least objection upon the nature " of tl}e American Claims. She rejected all alike, " without makintf anv distinction : and she declared " herself ready to abide by the decision of the Tribu- " nal. By what right, then, can England now insist " upon reservations as to this or that category of the " American claims, or upon the competence of the " Tribunal to which she has agreed to refer these " diverse claims. We can scarcely think that England " will wish to incur the responsibility of a conflagra- " tion, the consequences of which may be incalculable. " To refuse to submit to the arbitrators the questions " in dispute is either to doubt the impartiality of the " Tribunal, or to withdraw in advance from a verdict " which is foreseen," — Constitutlone/le, February G, 1872. '* The stipulations of the Treaty leave no one to " doubt that the American Commissioners expressly " reserved the right to present such claims, though " nothing was said about the amount of the claims, " the decision in that respect being left to the Tri- " bunal of Arbitration. It sounds strangely when " the English nation either sets down its representa- " tives as dupes, or suddenly separates itself from 12 Common Sense. " their opinions — opinions which, at a period nearer " the events, were not so absurd but that the Brights " and the Cobdens openly acknowledged them." — AUgemeine Zeitung. " If the demands are really as preposterous as the " English press endeavour to represent them, why " should not the latter wait in confidence the decision " of the eminent men composing the Court of Arbi- " tration, who will sift the matter thoroughly, being "assisted in their deliberations by the best jurists of " England? In official circles these claims must " have been well understood, for the protocols plainly " show that the American representatives, in draw- " ing up the Treaty, expressly reserved the right to " make these claims." — Easier Nachrichtefi. " The attitude of the United States in this matter *' affords a striking contrast to that of England. There " the question is put upon the proper foundation. It " is said that England wished to carry the dispute " before a Tribunal of Arbitration instead of settling " it amicably. It is now therefore simply a question "to be debated before a sovereign tribunal, and the " subject of this debate is all the claims arising from " the actions of the Confederate cruisers, and all " questions relative to these claims. The text of the " Treaty is formal, and upon reading the protocols " we are in still less doubt as to the extent of the " claims made by the United States according to the " principle laid down. The Tribunal will decide " what are valid claims and what questions are to be I ^-r Commoir^Sense. 13 od nearer le Brights them."— 3US as the bem, why e decision 't of Arbi- hly, being t jurists of lims must ols plainly , in dravv- le riffht to I. bis matter nd. There lation. It he dispute of settling a question d, and the •ising from s, and all text of the ! protocols ent of the ling to the vill decide s are to be " discussed. The American Government demands " neither more nor less than this. It has represented *' its case to the judges, and it awaits their decision. " England would have done better if she had done " the same. Her irritation is that of a bad pleader " who is in doubt as to his law, and as to the impar- *' tiaiity of his judges. She can gain nothing by this " irritation. If any question demands calm and cool ** treatment, it is this one, for on its solution may " depend the future of British Commerce, as it will *' not be difficult for us to show." — Journal de Paris, Fev. 8. " * * • Upon this basis therefore the Treaty was " signed. If it is repudiated, it will be the fault of " England, and not of the United States, which still " adheres to it more than ever. Article I. of the " Treaty announces that ' in order to remove and adjust " all complaints and claims on the part of the United " States it has been agreed that all claims arising " from acts committed by the vessels spoken of shall " be referred to a Tribunal of Arbitration.' It is " evident that in the actual state of the case it is not " a question as to the pretensions of the United States " so much as of the refusal of England to submit to the " Arbitrators all the complaints and all the claims, " which the terms of the Treaty of Washington seem " to demand." — Liberty, 8 Fevrier. " The Cabinet of London maintains that the Com- " mission of Arbitration at Geneva can only pass upon " the question of direct damages, which amount, ac- (MM«- 14 Common Sense. " cording to the calculations of the Cabinet at Wash- " ington to fourteen millions of dollars. The question " having some interest, our readers will not object to " our placing before them the principles in dispute. " It is not, we hasten to say, that the calculations of " the American authorities are not made with a certain " amount of exaggeration : but the essential point to " be regarded is whether the preparatory arrange- " ments for the Tribunal convened at Geneva excluJe " the question of indirect damages. We think that " they do not exclude it." — Soir, February 0, 1H72. " The abstract given by the ' Observer ' of the " despatch said to have been sent to Washington, " bears better witness to the trouble the British Cabi- " net is in, than to its ability. Aside from the " ' Friendly Tone' the despatch contains the three " following propositions : — England earnestly wishes " to carry out the Washington Treaty. England " thought the claim for indirect damages not included " in the Treaty. England cannot submit to a decision *' by the Tribunal of Arbitration if the question of in- *' direct damages is to be considered an open one. *' In no more clumsy or frivolous manner would it " be possible to jump from the position of an adhe- " rent to a treaty to the declaration of wish to recede " from its obligations. ' England did not consider " the claim for indirect damages as included in the " Treaty.* This is the only argument with which the " British Government covers its Salto Mortate. The " simple supposition by one of the two contract- ^* 4 I Comniun Sense. 15 at Wash- question object to dispute, ations of a certain point to arrunge- a excluJe link that , 1872. •' of the shington, ish Cabi- froin the the three ly wishes England included I decision ion of in- jpen one. would it an adhe- to recede consider }d in the which the ale. The contract- I *' ing parties that tiie Treaty of Washington liad " reference only to direct damages, is to be tlic " motive for an abrogation of this Treaty. W(5 " should doubt the truth of this abstract if it did not " agree so well with the tone of the London press, and " especially with that of the ' inspired ' papers. Since " it became known that the Nort'i American Cabinet " had brought forward claims for indirect damages " for the consideration of the Geneva Tribunal, a " panic has arisen in England, and now they wish " to have nothing further to do with this Tribunal. " It cannot be shown that the United States have " broken the Treaty. It may be said that the Union " is shameless in her demands, and that her claims " exceed proper bounds — but the wording of the " Treaty does not prevent her in any manner from " brinffinir forward claims for indirect as well as " direct damages. Therefore the English statesmen " have been able to find no escape except that of an " appeal to their personal interpretation of the Treaty. " They understood it otherwise than the United States : " thev understood it did not admit claims for indirect "damages. This is a mere pretext, and can only be " called a retreat, a very sorry retreat at that. With " an appeal to personal interpretation and belief what " Treaty can be for a moment on a firm and solid " foundation ? In America this declaration will make " no little stir. As England, instead of adhering to the *' Geneva Tribunal, appeals directly to the White " House, it will probably be concluded that she intends 16 Common Sense. " thus to indicate her retreat from the Treaty of May 8, *' 1871. Under these circumstances this much to be " regretted affair may still make much trouble, althou<>h •' we believe it will not extend beyond the region of •'diplomacy.' — Frankfurter Zc'itung, 6 Feb. 1872. ***** The chief argument of America against the •' English protest is a reference to a decision by the " Tribunal of Arbitration. Here the American press *' is in direct opposition to that of England, which " in advance has distinctly declared that England " cannot agree to an unfavourable decision by the " Tribunal in regard to the claim for indirect " damages. The Diplomatic Memorial does not con- *' tain the objections which England raises. The de- " mands of America were known to England from the " first, and her representatives did not object. They '• contented themselves by indicating that England " could not be held liable for damage done the *' United States by cruisers of the Confederate States, *' as proper diligence had been exercised to prevent " their being armed and fitted out in English ports, " and these representatives simply referred all the *' claims of North America having the action of these " cruisers for a basis to a Tribunal of Arbitration. " Article I. of the Treaty of Washington distinctly de- •* clares : — ' Now in order to remove and adjust all com- " ' plaints and claims on the part of the United States, " ' and to provide for the speedy settlement of such "'claims which are not admitted by Her Britannic " ' Majesty's Government, the High Contracting ! y I n..,i I-.,. .Ul l J ^- J Common Sense. 17 ! ^V> " ' Parties agree that all the said claims growing out " * of acts comniitted by the aforesaid vessels, and " 'generically known as the ' Alabama Claims' shall " ' be referred to a Tribunal of Arbitration.' ' — Der Biiml, Feb. 7, 1872. The London Correspondent of the " AUgemeine Zeitung " has lately written to that journal a resum^ of the articles in the London press on this question. It ought to be a subject of interest to both Americans and Englishmen to know how these remarkable pro- ductions are regarded by a neutral Wi'iter. Writing on the 1 st of February, he says : — " We have already pointed out that the violent " effort made by the English press to prejudice public " opinion in advance in favour of their own views in " regard to the American case was as imprudent as "unjust: unjust because it was based upon statc- " ments which were not made in the American case, " imprudent because the design was evidently far from " conciliatory. We should not hesitate to censure this " behaviour still more severely if it appeared to us " inexcusable that the reserve demanded in private " affairs of honour where a reference to arbitration is " made, should not also be carried into state affairs. " In view of the silence or moderation of the American " press, the English papers appear to have felt the " necessity of an apology, if not even of a change of " opinion, and if we detect here and there traces of " more moderate views it is because the English press " does not learn for the first time to-day that it is easier 18 ( '0)11)110)1 SeuKe. to kindle a flanio than to put it out. Wo have alrojidy remarked how the iiitoniperate articles of the 'Saturdiiy Review' fanned the liffhtlv-veerinf wind of the ' Times ' into a storm which soon swept ovei* the whole country. And so powerful wjis this unjinimity of puhlic opinion that even organs which had bitterly blamed the action of the Government during the civil war, such as the * Observer,' yielded at once to it. The leading journal declares that it is impossible, with honour, to reject an unfavourable decision if the question has been allowed to be sub- mitted to arbitration, and thus seeks to excuse its action ; it is impossible to reject any decision unless it has been beforehand agreed not to abide by the judgment of the arbitration. The journal assumes thereby a position outside of the Treaty, and it is but one step further to declare that an unfavourable judgment should be rejected, a determination which is expressed in explicit terms in case these claims are presented on behalf of the other side to the Tribunal. It is supposed that anything derogatory to the Arbitration Tribunal is avoided by the declaration that the question of presenting these claims for in- direct damages is not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal of Geneva, and it is alleged with regard to this that their Commissioners in Washington were duped. ' Had they anticipated,' continues the same journal in another article, ' that these claims vi^ould be presented, the Commission would have been speedily broken up. In that case England would ' .r t> ( 'oninioii Si'im- \S) * .r •0 { (I (1 <( «( n (( (( (( 1( (( (t it (( (( (( n i( (( (( i( (( (I (( (I • ( (( (( (( t< (( not have consonted to record an expression of rcjrre.t, and \vi)uld not liavc yielded lier claims for Fenian invasions in Canada. 'I'hc public has a right to ho informed whether the American understanding of the Treaty will he rejected energetically, and it asks for that pur])ose a state paocr that shall he worthy of England.' ^'\ conclusion it says : ' This is the usual way in such proceedings, to ask that both Govern- ments should declare their understanding of the meaning of the Treaty,' a request which, in the * Pall Mall Gazette,' amounts to the threat that if the Government does not take immediate steps with re- gard to these chiims, immediate steps must be taken against the Government itself. Public opinion is often in danger of going too far, and truly in this matter the press docs not hold it back. Rumours have been openly circulated in all the papers calcu- lated to produce great bitterness ; it is reported that American swindlers had made it their business to buy up the claims. ' Immediately after the war,* said the ' Morning Post,' *an AlabamaRing was formed, which got possession of the claims !•* '"'0 per cent, of their nominal value, and were no\ aaking a shameful stock speculation with the indirect claims.' The informant further states that, during the transactions for the reciprocity Treaty with Canada, through the p]nglish Minister at Washington, a public offer was made to settle the matter behind the scenes, in con- sideration of a bonus of £25,000 sterling ; only the want of secret funds prevented the thing being WMT" 20 Comtnon Sense. nccmnplislied. Others decliin! tlic indirect claims to be an election card of (Jrant's, to win the Re- publican Convention which is to assemble in June at Philadelphia ; but that this could be easily frus- trated. In fact, they omit nothinj^ which can serve to confuse men's minds, and such has been the effect; and the Government itself has yielded to threats, and has at least semi-officially declared its intention in the * Daily Telegraph.' The summing up of that paper may be briefly given thus : that the submission to arbitration, if the Americans persist in referring the indirect claims, must be courteously but inflexibly re- fused. * A half-dozen words,' it adds, * at the opening of our answer, will suffice to enlighten the Tribunal upon the views of England with regard to this point. But these words must be spoken without delay, without hesitation, with a boldness and confidence of demeanour which will bear witness that, behind the men who make these utterances, will be found the whole English nation, willing to do its duty, but prepared to uphold its rights.' While we are writing, a telegram reaches us from the * Daily News,' according to which the Government has the firm intention to ask an immediate revision of the Washington Treaty." 1 have already said that, should this submission fall through, the failure may be followed by war. I do not, however, mean to imply that the Government of the United States would necessarily be placed in a Common Sense. 21 > position to declaro war, or that the American people would desire it. Should Her Majesty's Government refuse to go on with the arbitration, in consequence of a misunder- standing between the two Governments as to the extent of the submission, or should it also refuse to submit that misunderstanding to arbitration, it would logically follow that the United States would be at liberty to insist that a Treaty framed in misappre- hension, should be abrogated. But it is not unlikely that the people of the United States would prefer to await a European complication, which would leave them as neutrals to put Great Britain's Alabama theories of neutrality in practice. It is scarcely possible, however, that a collision among the mackerel fishermen could bo avoided in the coming season. In such case, with the temper that would be left after the abrogation of the Treaty, there would be little hope of preventing a fishery squabble on the coast of Canada from expanding into a gigantic war. As American. London, February 9, 1872. CIIISWICK PIIKSS: — I'lllMKO UY WIIITTINOIIAM AND WILKINS, TOOkii COURT, ClIANCRnv I.ANK. 7 i t^- .-it5«t;^j^,^i,(i;«fi6»*3*->-i- ny-'iiii'Y-'1 Ttffl1liW firafr-'t1"'^"i^rr-^ BIJWWk«KWW*;=*'****«»*^^*»l*6M%iS^SB*'