The Sun.
London, England, 1869-02-16 00:00:00

THE SUN,
_LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 16, 1869.

tilE LICENSING SYSTEM..

It is very clear that whatever may be the differ •
ences of opinion as to the propriety of selling
alcoholic liquors at all, there ought to be some
revision of the laws under which they are now sold.
At present there are several authorities, and some of
these conflict with each other. For instance, it is
stated that four of the houses at the new London
Cattle Market were found to be selling spirits without
hindrance on the part of the Inland Revenue Depart-
ment for six months before theirlicenses were granted.
It was ascertained that they had ventured to
do so on the strength of a recommendation
from the licensing magistrates to the effect that the
necessary certificate wouldi in all probability, be
granted at the ensuing licensing sessions. The
Inland Revenue Department states in answer to the
secretary of the Wine Trade Society that it is
accustomed to respect these recommendations. The
secretary has not, however, been able to obtain from
the Home Secretary an expression of opinion as to
whether the licensing magistrates and the Board of
lnlana Revenue respectively are acting witain ;JAW
Dowers in taking the course referred to.l

InATHER.
;Very much after date the returns of the Rigiatrar-
General for the week ending February 6th are
published. They are worth alluding to, even now,
on account of the extraordinary temperature which
was attained during that .week. On January 31
the thermometer was 14.1 degrees above the average
of fifty years and on February 4 and 5 it was
13.6 and 13.8 degrees above the average. Onthe last-
mentioned day the thermometer reached 61.6 in the
shade, an elevation we imagine unparalleled so early
in the year. The mean temperature of the whole
week was 11.1 above the average.

THE ALABAMA QUESTION.

(From the Anglo-American Times.)

As the Convention for settling the claims arising
from the depredations of the Confederate cruisers
will probably be rejected by the Senate, there is
little profit in discussing its provisions. It does,
however, furnish a striking proof of the different
aspects in which the same acts appear when viewed
from the United Kingdom and the United States.
The Alabama gets to sea from the Mersey where
she was built—cruises in the North and South At-
lantic Oceans, in the Indian Ocean, the Bay of
Bengal, and the China Seas, returns and is sunk in
the English Channel. About her proceedings, being
notorious, there is no dispute, but the two nations
find it so difficult to assimilate their views of her
depredations that the Convention resulting from
years of labour and discussion is rejected by one
country to the evident satisfaction of the other.
Americans clearly do not like the Convention, and
anxious as England is to settle the dispute, Eng-
lishmen do not fancy the proposed arbitration.
General GRANT, both the New York Times and
Tribune reported to have said " that the Treaty was
unjust in measuring the injury inflicted on the
United States by the money value of the ships de-
stroyed, whereas the chief damage was the loss of
commerce through the action of the cruisers. Eng-
lish sympathy prolonged the war for at least a year,
and England is therefore responsible for the lives lost
and the money expended during that time; the Treaty
proposes to settle all this by the payment of the value
of a few ships." Admitting that the President
Elect did say what the Tribune so positively asserts
were nearly his words, another subject arises, when
the discussion assumes such a breadth, for England
might then assume to have the right to call in
question the whole management of the war by the
United States Government. The General asserts
that it was English sympathy that prolonged the
war for a year ; England is responsible for the lives
lost and money expended during that year. Suppose
that the English retort with " You yourself then
commanded the United States armies, and you have
been charged with recklessly sacrificing your men,
as well as with blundering in your campaign against
LEE are we to be responsible for your mismanage-
ment ?" As regards the damage to American com-
merce mainly resulting from the proceedings of the
Alabama England might bring forward the written
testimony of no less an authority than Admiral
SEMMES to rebut the assertion that she was respon-
sible, and to fix that responsibility on the Secretary
of the United States Navy. " If Mr. WELLEs,"
says SEMMES, " had stationed a heavier and a faster
Iship than the Alabama, and he had a number of
both heavier and faster ships—at the crossing of the
1 30th parallel, another at or near the equator a little
to the eastward of Fernando de Noronha, and a
third off Bahia, he must have driven me off or
greatly crippled me in my movements. A few more
ships in the other chief highways and his commerce
would have been pretty well protected." Now here is
a distinct charge brought against the Cabinet Minis-
ter of the United States, who alone held the power
of protecting American commerce against this vessel.
If, then, a British Minister is accused of neglect in
permitting the vessel to escape from the Mersey an
American Minister may be accused of neglect in
not putting a stop to the depredations ; and if the
neglect of the one can fasten the blame on his na-
tion, why should not the neglect of the other do
likewise ? On this point the Confederate Captain
is very clear, for not only does he say that " the
o!d gentleman does not seem to have thought of so
simple a policy as stationing a ship anywhere,"
but he adds that the plan pursued was exactly that
which secured his safety, for he had only to work
out with a pencil the number of days it would
take the prisoners he sent off to reach their port, the
news to reach Washington and the time the man-of-
war then sent hurriedlyoff would require to reach his
cruising ground, to calculate that when it got there
he might be elsewhere. Here then is another subject
for discussion, which appears to have been wholly
overlooked at Washington, admitting for the sake
of argument that these assertions could be brought
up for discussion, which is at least more than
doubtful. Allowing that the United States proves
the accusation of neglect against the United King
Glom, aria that the United Kingdom proves the ac-
cusation of neglect against the United States, what
i 3 to be the measure of England's liability ?
11.11 en the Commissioners get addled, we presume
they will refer such a knotty point to the infallible
,4 heads or tails." Of course the United
expedient of
States would bar such considerations, for it is clear
that they are beyond the province of a foreign
power, but this is precisely the position assumed
by England in her attempt to evade her liability,
asserting no one but herself can be permitted to judge
of her officers, or to call in question her laws or
sovereign rights. To this the reply is, that where
a great wrong is inflicted those who suffer can in-
quire into the cause and demand redress. If it were
the duty of England to prevent the infringement of
her neutrality laws, it was the duty of America to
protect her commerce, and when her enemy got
English port to sea—how far is
the ship from the
the United States bound, before she can establish
her claim
against England, to show that she did her
best to
protect her commerce, for, if she has no
liability on such a
point, England will be in the
to pay, not only for her own
neglect, but for that a the United States. Here is
position of having
a suggestion of the New York Express :-.-‘, Should
the head of the Government selected as arbiter
decide that England is not responsible to the United
States for releasing the Alabama, Shenandoah,
Florida,mc., it will prevent a consideration of the
la
American citizens, and our Government
cics of
would than be placed in a position whereby all the
counter-claims of British subjects would have to
be paid, leaving us millions of dollars poorer than
before the Treaty was made." Another paper says
the claims of the Confederate bondholders may
be admitted by the Commission under the agree-
ment to adjudicate British claims against the
United States as well as American claims against
England. A third jokingly alludes to the possibi-
lity that SEal3lEs may claim compensation for the
loss of his personal baggage in the Alabama. With
reference to the words attributed to GRANT the Na-
tion observes that, " allowing the war to have been
prolonged by the recognition of the South as a bel- 1
ligerent, it is impossible to say how much it contri-
buted, or, what proportion of the loss sustained by
the North, was due to her agency. We might as
well attempt to put the Democratic party on its
trial for complicity in the rebellion, and force it to
pay the national debt, as to put England on her
trial and force her to pay for all the damage sus- .
tained by American commerce through the military
operations of the Confederates." if the discussion
may branch into any fields, what is to prevent
Manchester from claiming compensation for an in-
dustry paralyzed by the blockade of the Southern
a quantity that can be as-
ports ? If sympathy is
sessed as damage, and lives priced, a new element
will be introduced into international law, and
perhaps England may be able to make out a bill
for the late insurrection in Ireland. Above all
things, it is necessary to be just—meting to each
the same measure. For instance, as all Christen-
dom joined in the recognition, all Christendom is
as liable as England, and it would be invidious in
the United States to press the claim against any
one country. The subject more than any other
requires to be approached in a calm and judicial
spirit, being thoroughly stripped of. sentiment, prej et-
dice, and bitterness of feeling, yet it is that one most
wrapped in such emotions. First, there is the in-
tense annoyance felt in the United States at the at-
titude of England during the war ; next, the bitter-
ness caused by the loss of the ocean-carrying trade,
though we have reason to believe that this was more
due to other agencies than to the cruisers ; third, the
dislike of ANDREW JOHNSON and his policy enter-
tained by the ruling party in the States; and,
finally, the irritation so loudly expressed at the
course taken by Mr. REVERDY JOHNSON. It is very
well to tell a nation that the subject must be
approached with the mind divested of all these in-
fluences. The Commissioners could perhaps be able
so to approach it, but a boy might as well be told
not to smart who had just been whipped, as Ame-
rica to divest herself of such natural feelings. Nor
can the Senate, discussing it as a High Court, for
the passionate exclamations of the people, which ,

finds expression in the press, must influence it, even
did the Senators, who are but men, not share in the
same sentiment. But what the United States re-
ject on one side as not conceding enough, England
rejects on the other as conceding too much. All
manner of exaggerations are put forth, conjuring
phantasms which create alarm, as likely to be the re-
sult, while it is impossible for any statesman so to
frame a convention that it would bar all chance of
extravagant suppositions being suggested. The
nations, in short, must trust to their Commissioners
being imbued with moderation and common sense,
and risk the result ; and why not this chance, where
heads or tails are recognized ? The very action of
England and America shows that these countries can
never, by any amount of discussion, settle the ques-
tion ; nor are they fit judges, each being absolutely
incapable of understanding the feelings of the other.
Hence the necessity, if the dispute is to be peace-
ably settled of choosing men on whose judgment they
can rely, and abiding the result, however unfair it
may be considered when applied to the touchstone
of their own heated feelings.