The Sun.
London, England, 1867-09-03 00:00:00

THE ALABAMA CLAMS.

The Foreign-office has issued a series of papers
on the question between this country and America
arising out of the late war. The correspondence
commences wither long despatch from Mr. Seward
to Mr. Adams, containing a summary of the
numerous claims occasioned by the captures made
by the Sumter, Alabama, Florida, Shenandoah,
and " other ships of war which were built, manned,
armed, equipped, and fitted out in British ports,
and despatched therefrom by or through the agency
of British subjects, and which were harboured,
sheltered, provided, and furnished as occasion re-
quired, during their devastating career, in ports of
the realm, or in ports of British colonies in nearly
all parts of the globe." This despatch is followed
by a reply from Lord Stanley, disputing the broad
assertion respecting the nationality of the above-
named vessels, and contesting the statements of Mr.
Seward as to the responsibility of the British Go-
vernment. In a letter of Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams,
dated the 12th of January last, the American
Minister replies :
" It is, indeed, true, as Lord Stanley has observed,
that the Alabama, when she left England, was
wholly unarmed, and not fully equipped as a war
vessel. It is also true that she received an arma-
ment, a further equipment, a commander, and a
crew in Angra-bay, Azores—a possession of the
Crown of Portugal—where the British Government
had no jurisdiction, and could exercise no lawful
control, even if they had an opportunity. But, on
the other hand, it is to be remembered that, not only
was the vessel built at Liverpool, but the armament
and the supplemental equipment were built and
provided there also, simultaneously and by the same
British hands, and also that the commander and crow
'
were gathered and organised at the same time
and the same place ; the whole vessel, arma-
ment, equipment, commander, and crew were
adapted, each part to the other ; and all were pre-
pared for one complete expedition. The parts were
fraudulently separated in Liverpool to be put to-
gether elsewhere, and they were fraudulently con-
veyed thence to Angra-bay, and there put fraudu-
lently together by her Majesty's subjects, not less
in violation of British than of Portuguese obliga-
tions to the United States. The offenders were
never brought to justice by her Majesty's Govern-
ment, nor complained of by the Government to the
Queen of Portugal. The Alabama, from the laying
of her timbers in Liverpool until her destruction by
the Kearsage off Cherbourg, never once entered
any port or waters of the United States. Whatever
pretended commission she ever had as a ship of war
must have been acquired either in Great Britain or
some other foreign country at peace with the United
States or on the high seas. Nevertheless, the
Alabama was received, protected, entertained, and
supplied in her devastating career in the British
ports of Capetown and Singapore, in the East, and
when she was finally sunk in the British Channel,
her commander and crew were, with fraudulent
connivance, rescued by British subjects and osten-
tatiously entertained and caressed as meritorious but
unfortunate heroes at Southampton."
Ile then denies our right to treat the Southerners
as belligerents at all :

" Lord Stanley defends the Queen's proclamation
by quoting against me certain utterances of the
Supreme Court of the United States, and of the
district of Columbia, of which he says her Majesty's
Government has seen no refutation. Certainly it
is not my purpose to refute these utterances. They
were made by learned and loyal tribunals. More-
over, Lord Stanley understands them correctly as
showing that at the time they were pronounced it
was the opinion of those Courts that a civil war
was actually existing at the time when the causes of
action arose in the cases which the Courts were
adjudicating. I may admit, further, that the
Courts referred to the President's blockade
proclamation, which preceded the Queen' neu-
trality proclamation, as one among the facts which
proved that the controversy here was not a mere
local insurrection, but had all the gravity, charac-
ter, and consequences of a civil war. But I must
insist, on the other hand—first, that neither of the
judicial utterances referred to asserts or admits
that the President's blockade proclamation ex-
pressly and in form declared or recognised the ex-
istence of civil war ; and, in the second place, that
both of these judicial utterances unmistakably im-
ply the contrary. The District Court of Columbia
pronounced its opinion on the 17th of June, 1861.
The Supreme Court of the United States withheld
its opinion until the 10th of March, 1863. The
capture which constituted the cause of action in the
District Court occurred on the 21st of May, 1861;
the captures concerning which the Supreme Court
of the United States adjudicated occurred on the
17th of May, 1861, the 20th of May, 1861, the
23d of June, 1861, and the 10th of July, 1861.
The Queen's proclamation of neutrality had ap-
peared before either Court pronounced its opinion,
and before either cause of action arose. British
subjects were claimants in some, and other foreign-
ers were claimants in others of these litigations.
Among the facts of which the Supreme Court took
notice, and which they set forth as the grounds of
their opinion, is the following : As soon as the
news of the attack on Fort Sumter and the organ-
isation of a Government of the seceding States
assuming to act as belligerents could become known
in Europe, to wit, on the 13th of May, 1861, the
Queen of England issued her proclamation of neu-
trality, recognising hostilities as existing between
the Government of the United States of America
and certain States styling themselves the Confede-
rate States of America. This was immediately fol-
lowed by similar declarations or silent acquiescence
by other nations.' "
After dwelling on this subject at great length,
Mr. Seward concludes with a reference to the Fe-
nians

" The Fenian movement neither begins nor ends
in the United States ; the movers in those pro-
ceedings are not native citizens of the United
States, but they are natives of Great Britain,
though some of them have assumed naturalisation
in the United States. Their quarrel with Great
Britain is not an American, but a British one, as
old (I sincerely hope it may not be as lasting) as
the union of the United Kingdom. Their aim is
not American but British revolution. In seeking
to make the territory of the United States a base for
the organisation of a republic in Ireland, and of
military and naval operations for its estabii6bment
there, they allege that they have followed as an
example proceedings of British subjects in regard
to our civil war allowed by her Majesty's Govern-
ment. The policy and proceedings of the two Go-
vernments in regard to those parallel movements
have not assimilated. The United States' Govern-
ment has not recognised the Irish republic as a
belligerent, and has disarmed its force when found
within our territories and waters. With regard to
shall be brought
nnerin
to
which
this protracted controversy
an end, we agree entirely with
the sentiments expressed by Lord Stanley. We
should even think it better that it be brought to an
end which might perhaps in some degree disappoint
the parties, than that it should continue to alienate
the two nations, each of which is powerful enough
to injure the other deeply, while the maintenance
of conflicting principles in regard to intervention