The Sun.
London, England, 1869-05-03 00:00:00

MR. SUMNER ON THE ALABAMA CLAIMS.

However closely Mr. Sumner's speech on the Alabama
claims may have represented American feeling, his logic
is meeting with very rough treatment from the English
;press. The demands of the United States, as set forth
by him, may be very simply and briefly stated. We must
admit our breach of international law in recognising the
belligerency of the South, and make a profound apology.
Then the amount, our liability being unquestioned, is to
be assessed. By giving the South the assistance of a
"naval base" in England, we are charged with doubling
the length of the war. We must pay, therefore, half the
whole cost of the struggle, about 250 millions sterling, and
adding to this the loss by interrupted commerce, our full
liability cannot be under 210 millions ! The Spectator says
the legal argument by which these extraordinary demands
are supported is a very poor ex parte statement of the
United States' case, without even the pretence of a judi-
cial discussion. He ignores the point that the recognition
of belligerency at sea was necessary to give the North the
power of blockade, the right to stop vessels on the high
seas. This recognition was even urged by some
Americans in the interests of the North alone. Then
nothing is said about France. Mr. Sumner throughout
mixes up sentimental with legal considerations.
The public feeling in England against the North was
undoubtedly a great moral wrong ; but to assume that we
have been guilty of a breach of international law on the
ground of this ill-feeling is simply monstrous. The
Government of England cannot apologise for the sins of
its people. The animus against America was marvel-
lously bad taste and bad feeling, but it must not be con-
founded with an international crime.
The Times similarly stigmatises the unsoundness of
Mr. Sumner's logic, and the exorbitance of his demands.
Sentiment, it says, has a large place in the pleas by which
he opposes the Clarendon-Johnson Treaty. Mr. Sumner
attributes almost all the loss inflicted upon America by
England to the Queen's Proclamation of Neutrality, but
in reality the whole tenour of the proclamation is prohi-
bition. Blockade running was not legalised, but expressly
forbidden, by the proclamation. There has been no pro-
clamation or recognition of any sort in the case of
Cuba, but the Americans none the less run the
Spanish blockade. The only real evil inflicted by the
proclamation was the position given by it to the Alabama
in the ports of the British empire, and this part of the
American grievance would have come within the operation
of the rejected treaty.

The Daily News ridicules the claim of one-half the cost
of the war. Doubtless Mr. Sumner was not poking fun
at his countrymen ; but such flights of fancy have all the
effect of an anti-climax in England. It is mere waste of
time to discuss such statements. We must wait fur the
declaration of General Grant's policy through Mr.
Motley. The Standard is not less trenchant, whilst
the POI Mall Gazette is positively bellicose. It stig-
matises Mr. Sumner's speech as insulting and threaten-
ing. "We ought to be willing and ready to
discuss the question of individual losses immediately
caused by any act ahicti can be regarded as negligence on
our part ; hut as to entertaining the question of paying
general damages for recognising the Confederates, we
ought to be prepared to fight first, at all hazards and dis-
advantages." The Angle-American Times holds to the
belief that the extravagance of the demands is but a
feint; Mr. Sumner's real object is the annexation of
Canada.