Legation of
the United States,
St.
Petersburg, February 18,
1872. (Received March 15.)
No. 157.]
[Inclosure No. 1.]
Extract from the St. Petersburg Gazette,
January 30, [February 11,]
1872.
This bitter journalistic controversy has excited the European
political and financial world, and the telegraph informs us that the
turn taken by the Alabama question has a sensible action on the
great European money-markets. Many, who take for sound
[Page 480]
coin the fanfaronades of
the English newspapers, their speeches about war, and the sharp
answers of the American journalists, consider a war between England
and the United States as already inevitable. We do not share the
views of these pessimists, being fully confident that the voice of
reason will prevail with two nations so calculating and so little
disposed to be carried away by passion as the English and North
American.
The United States open themselves the door to England, through which
it can honorably go without recourse to war. They declare that they
will not change the contents of their case; that England has not the
privilege of drawing up the case for each side; that they present
those claims which they believe they have a right to present; but
that then it depends on the arbitrators to give the affair this or
the other turn; and that they will willingly yield to every decision
of the judges whom they have themselves chosen. We may consider the
American demands just or unjust, but it is impossible not to admit
that, in putting the present disputed question on such a ground,
they are, in a juridical point of view, unconditionally right. No
one can forbid the plaintiff from fixing the sum of his complaint,
especially if the defendant has already admitted in principle his
duty to pay the plaintiff; after that the inquiry into the
rightfulness of the complaint depends no longer on the complainant,
and still less on the respondent, but on the judges. The defendant
can deny the rightfulness of the sum asked by the plaintiff by all
means in his power, and no one deprives England of this right; but
to declare that she will withdraw entirely from the court, and to
prefer to have recourse to fighting only because the plaintiff has
brought too great a sum in his complaint, is, to say the least,
strange. So, we repeat, the method of action of the Americans
appears to us thoroughly logical, and we are sure that the
reasonableness of the American procedure will be acknowledged by the
English themselves when the first burst of dissatisfaction has died
out. In addition to this, the most influential American newspapers
plainly declare that the Americans in presenting their claims never
expected that they would be paid in full, and purposely made them as
large as possible in order to get something less out of England.
This system of asking too much may be thought strange, though it is
quite natural, coming from such a commercial nation as America.* * *
* We may find this system not particularly praiseworthy from a moral
point of view, but legally the United States are in the right, and,
relying on the decision of the arbiters, they put the disputed
question on the only rational ground, where, it may be hoped, the
English will follow them. Let England show the tribunal of
arbitration the impropriety of the American claims, about which
there is now such a hue and cry, let her show the justice of her
propositions, and then the arbiters, whom she herself has chosen,
will of course decide in her favor, without any damage to her pocket
or to her national honor. To withdraw from the presentation of the
matter to the arbitration and to rush to arms would be stupid in the
highest degree. We have too high an opinion of the political tact
and good sense of the English people to suppose for a minute that
the threats of war, of which the English newspapers are now full,
could be realized. There is no doubt that America would suffer from
such a turn of affairs, but England would suffer far more.
[Inclosure 2.]
Extract from the Moscow Gazette of February
4, [16,] 1872.
* * * The Geneva conference is the first serious attempt to arrange
an important international difference by means of an arbitration,
and therefore it would be a pity if it did not meet, but in any case
its failure only leaves both sides in the position in which they
were before the conclusion of the treaty. We, however, do not think
that we should consider the arbitration as having finally failed.
England knows that if she withdraws now from the treaty the
Americans will become still more exigent, and in America the success
of the administration of President Grant is bound up with these
negotiations. The presentation of demands which were evidently
unexpected by England, may perhaps be nothing more than a party
maneuver. Lately in America there has been much talk that Mr. Fish
was conceding and deferring too much to England, and these reports
could not be without influence on the popularity of the whole
Government; and this year, as is well known, there is a new
presidential election. To assure the re-election of President Grant,
it would be very apropos to show that his Government took as jealous
care of American interests as the most ardent patriot of that
democratic country. It is very noteworthy that in America they look
at this question much more calmly than in England, and even wonder
at the excitement there. It is also remarkable that this excitement
and indignation has so far been shown only in words, and there have
been none of the appearances usual in the moment of apolitical
crisis. In all probability a compromise will soon be found which
will allow of the settlement of the affair. There is already news
from Berlin that the German Emperor has proposed his services for
this end.
