“People here ask how he could congratulate the British government if he knew all the while that their construction of the treaty, which was to cement the friendship of the two countries, fatally differed from the construction put upon it by the government at Washington.
“I have not given my own but the English view of the matter. When such momentous issues are at stake—when a false move on the diplomatic board may endanger the peace of two kindred nations—it is absolutely necessary that our people should know what is the English side in this controversy. The first duty of a loyal American citizen is to ascertain the whole truth, and not by ignorance or obstinacy to commit himself to a wrong course.
“Many hard words have been lately spoken and written about Mr. Gladstone. I therefore feel it incumbent upon me to bear my testimony to the large and statesmanlike view of American affairs which he has taken for several years past, and to the cordial good feeling he has shown towards our country since he has been at the head of the present government. In spite of temporary misunderstanding, I will continue to hope that the Treaty of Washington will bear the fruit which he anticipated; that, to quote his own eloquent words in the House of Commons on the 4th of August, that treaty will do much ‘towards the accomplishment of the great work of uniting the two countries in the ties of affection where they are already bound by the ties of interest, of kindred, of race, and of language, thereby promoting that strong and lasting union between them which is in itself one of the main guarantees for the peace of the civilized world.’
“With great respect I remain,
“My dear Mr. Colfax,
“Very truly your friend,
“Cyrus W. Field.”
Mr. Bright wrote to him at this time:
“This trouble about the treaty is very unfortunate. I think your letter admirable, and I hope it will do good in the States, where, I presume, it will be published. I confess I am greatly surprised at the ‘case’ to be submitted to the Geneva tribunal. There is too much of what we call ‘attorneyship’ in it, and too little of ‘statesmanship.’ It is rather like a passionate speech than a thoughtful state document. And what a folly to offer to a tribunal claims which cannot be proved. No facts and no figures can show that the war was prolonged by the mischief of the pirate ships; and surely what cannot be proved by distinct evidence cannot be made the subject of an award. This country will not go into a court to ask for an award which, if against it, it will never accept. An award against it in the matter of the indirect claims will never be paid, and therefore the only honest course is to object now before going into court. Has the coming Presidential election or nomination anything to do with this matter? Or is Mr. Sumner’s view of the dispute dominant in Washington? I should have thought your government might have said: ‘We will not press the claims objected to before the tribunal, but we shall retain them in our “case” as historic evidence of our sense of magnitude of the grievance of which we complain.’
“This, I dare say, would have satisfied our government and people, and practically it would have satisfied every reasonable man in the States. To such as would not be content with it, friendship and peace would, in the nature of things, seem to be denied.”
Soon after his return home he received the following letter, and returned the answer to that of Mr. Bright:
“Washington, 1512 H Street, 29th March.
“My dear Mr. Field,—I cannot tell you how grieved I have been at the difficulty which has arisen respecting the Washington Treaty.