The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1872-02-03 00:00:00

THE ALABAMA CLAIMS.

(Front the Daily News.)

The American Claims against England, as they are
now formulated, are a very serious thing for our
Government, but they are still more serious for the
country; and it is high time that we should know
accurately how we stand with regard to them. It
is quite certain that our Ministers and Com-
missioners had no notion whatever that such as-
tounding and obviously inadmissible demands could
arise from the bases laid down in the Treaty of
Washington; and the question remaining is whether
the Government have been tricked and duped by reason
of their own disastrous and culpable negligence, or
whether the American statement of damages is a prepos-
ter,su nvention, for which no reasonable cause can be
foun in any previousnegotiations. As a mere prelude
to this inquiry, we may point out that the Case pre-
pared on behalf of this country for the Tribunal of
Arbitt ation was drawn up in absolute ignorance of
what the American Case would be. No definite and
complete statement of those claims has ever been
furnished by the United States ; and only a general
definition of them is to be found in the first eleven
articles of the Washington Treaty, Her Majesty's
Government, in submitting their Case draw
the attention of the Arbitrators to this cir-
cumstance ' • and add that, when the claims of
the United States shall have been clearly ascertained,
such additional or more ample statement of facts as
may be deemed necessary shall be forwarded. But
even while laying down this precaution, the British
Case assumes a limit to the inquiry and its consequent
demands. It assumes that the vessels, although they
are not mentioned in the Treaty, are the Alabama, the
Florida, Georgia, and Shenandoah. It assumes that
the claims to be laid before the Tribunal are claims
"growing out of the acts "of one or other, or all of
these four vessels. It assumes that such demands will
be discarded as refer to indirect losses that may
have arisen from the negligence or weakness of the
combatant who now seeks redress; and points out
that if such claims were admitted, a belligelent might
demand to be indemnified by the neutral against
consequences really attributable to that belligerent's
own carelessness, want of capacity, or lack of enter-
prise. It is part of the British ( ase that the United
States showed great remissness in using the naval forces
at their disposal and that ordinary foresight and
activity would have prevented much of the loss of
which they now complain; and for such loss her
Majesty's Government do not hold themselves re.
sponsible. The British ( 'ase, we repeat, assumes from
beginning to end that the claims to be considered are
those az ising from the direct acts of the four vessels
we have named above.

Put when we come to the actuar wording in which
those opinions are conveyed, we diwrover a most un-
fortunate vagnenese. The Treaty itself is responsible
for a phrase which has been apparently accepted by
mr Goveniment withinuell candour and trust, while
it has afforded to the United States a dangerous argu-
ment in favour of the preposterous demands they 110 W
set foi th. The claims referred to the Tribunal are
claims " growing out of acts committed by the afore-
said vessels." According to the American theory,
these acts have grown like the bean-stalk in the fable,
until their leaves and branches stretch over whole
seas and continents. The only winder is that, having
grown no far, they did not glow farther; for there
is no sort of possible reason to account for the limit
which the American statesmen have thought fit to im-
pose. We are expected to pay for the prolongation of
the war, in itself an indefinite term ; and, if for that,
why not for the damage done ever since to American
commerce by the destruction, during that indefinite
"prolongation,' of many thousands of human lives?
When once we get away from the direct consequences of
the acts of these fonr vessels, there is no intelligible point
at which demands must necessarily stop ; and to name
such a sum as £200,000,000, is rnerly to strike at ran-
dom into a heap of figures. Certainley, it is a great pity
that all this was not guarded against. The British
Government obviously took it for granted that the
"indirect claims" of the Americans were waived in
view of the amicable settlement about to be prepared ;
I whereas, the Americans, refusing to consider the
I present Treaty as an equivalent to the amicable
I settlement which they had formerly proposed, bring
up these indirect claims again, and magnify them so
that it is impossible to estimate their size. The C.ase
, submitted on our behalf to the Arbitrators takes but
little heed of these indirect claims. Her Britannic
I Majesty's Government assumes that the claims sub-
mitted to the Tribunal are those "growing out of the
I acts " of the Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Shenan-
doah ; and but little prudence seems to have been
exercised in placing a definite construction on this
loose and perplexing phrase.
Prompt action must be taken in this matter. We

cannot consent to submit a certain question to arbitra-
tion, and then refuse to be bound by the judgment,
should that bdikiven against us; while it to absolutely
certain that this country will not accede to the wild
demands put forward by the American side. It is
true, as we have shown above, that our Government
reserved the right of further representation to the
Arbitrators, when the American Case should have be-
rainy known; but if negotiations were allowed to goon
Si' fair, it would be a dieeult matter to break them off,
while no reffeSentations short of a distinct refusal
to admit those claims as comprised within the
subject matter of the arbitration would meet the neces-
sity of the case. It is one thing to alter or amend
an argument, as that seems necessary to meet the other
side, and a quite different thing to refuse to treat on
a certain basis. This latter alternative is the least
that can be expected from the Covernment ; and by
taking effective steps in this direction they
will, in same measure, atone for the oversight
as {deli permitted the introduction of these absurd
demands. into the .4i-weesien. We do no*, how-
ever; mathtain that -her Majesty's Government
is altdg,ether relionsibte for this condition of
affairs. They may well plead as their excuse
that they could not be ached to provide against a con-
struction of the Treaty which every reasonable man
must regard as preposterous. The inere fact that the
statement of the Americin deminds has probamdly
astonished this country, already familiar with the
terms of the Washington Treaty, is in itself a proof
that ordinary foresight could not have anticipated the
sudden twist given to the course of the negotiations.
list then we demand from diplomatists and inter-
natiyual lawyers something better than ordinary
feeektlf.' ' Deslifmg sb4tween eountties 4may be
couched in most courteous language, but they
ought not to assume that whatever legal con-
ditions may he omitted will be supplied
by the generous interpretation of a friendly
national feeling. Apart from the immediate and grave
consequences which may result from this complication,
we cannot view without concern the peril in which our
first effint at settling international difficulties on anew
footing is involved: We were glad to look upon the
, Washington-Treaty as a precedent which promised to
be of the utmost value in the conduct of the affairs
, of the world, lint we shall not have arrived at a very
, pleasant method of arranging international disputes
d we find that the process of arbitration
! creates more difficulties than those which arbi-
tration is invoked to solve. It may be true
that these extravagant demands are intended
as an electioneering earl; but that does not remove the
gravity of the fact that they have been officially
recognised as the utterance of the United States
Government. Our duty in the matter in plain. If
our Ministers entirely misunderstood the attitude of
the United States, they must say so now, before they
have involved themselves any further in their negotia-
tions; and the Anierittan Government must be informed
that a Treaty which paves the way for such misunder-
standieg by the looseness of its language demands
instant and minute revision. The American con-
struction of its terms is out of the question in law and
in common sense; and the claims based on that
construction cannot he admitted as within the terms
of reference.

In connection with the above, the following letter
haa been sent to The Times:
have read with some concern, and, I must add, consider-
able surprise, your article upon the A labaum claims, from
which I learn that "the case" upon behalf of the United
states suggests linglasers liability for aft enormous suin in
the ottani: of indirect damages for the prolongation of the
war, or, In other words, remote consequential damages. As
..tie of those who tint called attentem to and reprobated
the continued career of the Alabama, as well as having limed
1111011 our own I.:averment the settlement of such damages
as that ev ileinsened vessel had itiflicted directly upon Ansericass
awl British shipowners and merchaets, by burning their
roperty at sea, issasmuch as I felt all but certain her de-
eiarture from Liverpieil was owing to the connivance Of an
important public officer: whose connexion with the public
service has long since ceased, I feel called upon to say I am
equally assured that no reasonable man ill lingland expected
or suggested that these claims could beta exaggerated as in
" the case." I write in ignorance of its conteuto, beyond what
is disclosed it. your article ; but I would venture to ask, is
this 'case" a document in any way committing our Govern-
ment loan acknowledgment of the reference of the question
of consequential damages at all ? The ease, I apprehend,
.c porte the Treaty, is the agreement of reference, upon
which alone the arbitrators can adjudicate questions, and
1 such must be found to be within its four corners. Is,
thee, the question of " indirect damages" so referred ?
I venture to reply it is not. Its consideration of this view,
I beg to say that no such view of the Washington Treaty
came under my observation in the last four months, which
I have mainly spent in the United States, having only left
New York it days ago. It is trite General Butler some
three months ago endeavoured to fasten odium upon the
United States Government by alleging that the Treaty sur-
rendered American fishing erivileges 111.1 111 so that
a foreign diplomatist, who is probably now in
England, es route for a colder climate, did at a
social party in icy presence "nag" some American
gentleman, including a United States' Senator, with sug-
gestions of its involving claims for all the cotton, die.,
bunt at the South owned by British subjects. Another
nritish gentleman and my self snore informed that we hail
surrendered 50 miles of coast in the Pacific, which did not
appear to as, however unhappy, to involve national deca-
dence. There was, however, no suggestion of liability for
consequential damages, even from the lynx-eyed critic who
was conspicuously anxious to find "a hole in our coats,"
and had the will to " profit it;" nor in any other company
or place, private or public, in America, in speech, writing,
or print, did the allege stion reach me: nay, I may add. lota
persuaded that to the mercantile connnunities it will come
as a disagreeable surprise when they read In The Timegof this
mornieg of England's liability of 1,000,000,000 dole. indirect
dansgeo occasioned bp the Alabama. I have enjoyed fre-
quent opportunities of conversation upon international topics
with merchants, bankers, lawyer., and even statesmen. such
so Mr. Sumner and others, including an Interview with the
President at chrisituas and notably front him, but I may add
inkjet:y..lly, I suet expressions of sailor-action at the Treaty,
is assuring the permanent reunion of good feeling and
lasting friendship between the oceau-divided English-
speaking peoples. The canaille who so Mug controlled
the politics of New York, and befouled its social, moral,
and even physical atmosphere having become audacious
from impunity, have, at last, exceeded human endurance
;by their rapacity as plunderers), and their chiefs are stow
rapidly journeyhig to the Penitentiary as convicts, much
to the sweeteuiug of the public breath and renianism is
so utterly "played out," to use an American phrase, as to
he powerless to raise a howl against England. Above all,
the prompt and genorous outflow of the milk of human kind-
stein front Old England to thicaeo touched the American
heart, and made thousasels tinpeivioua to moral in-
cendiariem. 'rhat there are persons still left, who have
type and printing ink under their control, whose Illißeioll
is mischief.making, I admit ; but I contend that their
power for evil is greatly reduced, and that at no time
in this century has a better understamlifig prevailed
between America and England. One distinguished Ameri-
can statesman did express a regret, which he said he had
mentioned to Sir Stafford Northrote—namely, that when
such a notable advance had been made in public law another
had not been made --namely, the embodiment of Mr.
Cobilen's proposal for the exemption of private property at
sea, not being munitions of war, front capture and seizure.
' I conclude by reiterating say conviction that the Washing-
, toll Treaty is not read by the American people in any other
sense than it is by yourself, or by
Your obedient servant,
Liverpool, January 29, JOHN PATTF.R.4ON,

"There is one brief statement in the Case of her
Majesty's Government on the Alabama Claims which sassy,
perhaps astonish some liriclish as well as most American
readers. It is there plainly and positively adirtned 'that
during the a hole period of the war, which lasted for four
years, no vessel armed for war was sent out or procured
from Britibh ports for belligerent use : and that of vessels
specially adapted by construction for warlikeuse, two only,
the Florida and the A kimono, were so procured; while of
these two, one only, the A Wm ono, escaped, and came into the
possession of the confederate Government, without having
undergone a seizure and trial.'"—Leader in The Times. .