The Sun.
London, England, 1868-11-20 00:00:00

GERMANY.

The two representatives of North Schleswig are causing
the Prussian Government some little trouble. Their
election had previously been declared void because they
would not take the constitutional oath ; but their con-
stituents returned them again. As their first decision has
been approved by the inhabitants of the districts which
they represent, they now again claim the privilege of
sitting without taking the oath, but this has not been
allowed. They have been invited to appear before a
commission specially charged to receive and consider their
formal declaration respecting the oath. Very mild treat-
ment this, for Prussia.

SWITZERLAND.

An interesting agitation is now being carried on in some
of the Swiss cantons in favour of a further infusion of
democracy into the constitution. This movement aims at
pure and simple government of the people by the people,
through the communal assemblies. Universal suffrage
is already part of the constitution which was
established in 1848, but it is now sought to
make its application more direct and general. The corn.
munal assemblies, which have hitherto managed all local
affairs, now seek to meddle in matters hitherto reserved to
the central executive. They also aim at supplanting the
body or committee which is now elected to draw up the
law. Some of the most liberal of the Swiss public men
have opposed this movement, fearing that too much local
influence may prove an obstacle to progress, but their
exertions have not availed much.

THE I, TIMES" ON THE SETTLEMENT OF
THE AMERICAN QUESTIONS IN DISPUTE.

( From the Anglo-American Times.)
We seldom transfer to our columns articles from
English newspapers, but we must insert the following
from the Times, although our readers may have been
surfeited with it before they see it here. Our rea-
son for quoting so little from our contemporaries in
London, is that most of our readers have the oppor-
tunity of seeing such papers as the 7 bites, and our
object is to give them news they cannot readily get
elsewhere :

The public will learn with much satisfaction from the
speech of Mr. Reverdy Johnson at the Guildhall that the
questions in dispute between England and the United
States of America have been so far settled that they can
no longer disturb the relations of the two countries. After
long and earnest negotiation, though carried on in a very
friendly spirit, certain principles have been agreed upon,
and a machinery has been provided by which the ques-
tions at issue may be fairly decided, each party stipulating
to submit to the award. It has been before stated that
three separate matters form the subject of discussion be-
tween the two Governments, the most important being the
liability of Great Britain to make good the damage in-
flicted on American commerce by the Alabama; and the
other two being the question of naturalization and
the old San Juan difficulty, which, though looked
upon as serious enough before the war, has of late
years been almost forgotten. It has now been de-
termined to remove at once all cause of dissension
by a general examination and settlement of the
claims on either side. For this purpose it has been agreed
between the two Governments that a commission shall be
appointed, consisting of four members, two be named by .
each Government, with the power to choose a fifth person
as President or Umpire. To this Commission will bo e-
ferred whatever questions have arisen since the year 1853.
This date has not been arbitrarily selected, since up to the
year mentioned the questions in dispute between the two
countries had been disposed of by a similar machinery.
The Commission will not have any lack of work, since
there are not only claims against us on the part of Ame-
ricans, but claims against the United States on the part of
British subjects on matters arising out of alleged invasions
of the rights of neutrals and damage done to neutral property
during the war. But with respect to the Alabama there is an
important political question, on which it is desirable to have
the decision of an authority higher even than that of such a
Commission. The liability of the British Government for the
lossesinflicted by this vessel andher consorts is a matter to be
judged by the principles of international law, and it has been
thought that the decision of an independent arbitrator will
be more satisfactory than that of a Commission, which
would possibly decide only by a casting vote. It has,
therefore, been agreed that this primary question of the
liability of Great Britain shall be referred to a European
Sovereign of the first class. The Emperor of the French
and the Emperor of Russia were both inadmissible, inas-
much as each might be represented as having acted some-
what as a partisan during the war. But there is another
Sovereign of the highest rank to whom no such objection
applies—one whose character inspires the highest respect
on both sides of the ocean. To this monarch, and to the
able lawyers whose advice he will command, will be sub-
mitted the question whether Great Britain, under the cir-
cumstances of the escape of the Alabama, is liable for the
depredations which she committed. Should the decision
be in our favour, the claims drop to the ground ; should it
be against us, the Commission we have mentioned will re-
ceive the statements of the parties aggrieved, and proceed to
examine each case in detail. It will thus be seen that the
claims arising out of the late war are now taken out of the
sphere of political controversy, and placed in the way of a
definite legal decision. Subsidiary to the Alabama claims
was the grievance of the American Government arising
out of the recognition by England of the Southern Con-
federacy as a belligerent. Cur Government has throughout
denied that any injury was inflicted on the United States
by this act, which was not only within the sovereign
power of the British Crown, but was, it is contended on
our side, absolutely necessary for the defence of our inte-
rests at sea. Our readers have read enough on this inter-
minable subject, and will probably be of opinion that,
though interesting as an abstract question, it has little
relevance to any matter which is now practically in
dispute. Such has been the view of the British Govern-
ment, and we are glad to learn that the United States so far
acquiesce in this opinion that it has been agreed not to
press the question of the recognition of the Confederacy.
The Government of the United States maintains its opinion
that it was treated with discourtesy and injustice, and
we maintain the contrary. There the matter rests, the
correspondence is not withdrawn, but nothing more will
be urged on either side. Thus end the controversies which
grow out of the war, and we sincerely congratulate Lord
Stanley on the success with which he has dealt with them.
Although they might not have led to war, although Great
Britain is strong enough to maintain her own construction
of facts and law, yet it cannot be doubted that the injuries
inflicted through the alleged negligence of the British
Government had created a very bitter feeling in America
which it would have been injudicious, as well as unfriendly,
to ignore. The late Government was, unfortunately, too
much concerned with the origin of the dispute, and had
used too decided a tone respecting it, to be able to carry
on negotiations with advantage. The present Foreign
Secretary has successfully availed himself of his more
fortunate position. Shortly after his accession to office
1 negotiations began on On subject, and, 04120, these

were at first unable to overcame the obstacles::whi4
rose on either side, yet the Minister has the satis-
faction of finding that his endeavours have at last
prevailed. Without making any concession which the
country might disapprove, ho has taken these trouble-
some questions out of the sphere of debate, and engaged
both parties to consider them purely in their legal aspect.
Whether the American Government be right or wrong, it
will have justice done to it by competent judges, and will
be unable any longer to accuse us of denying its rights.
The second matter in dispute between the two Govern-
ments related to the denationalization of British emigrants
who might become citizens of the United States. In one
or two cases among the Irish trials there was just the
shadow of a ground for alleging that England tried and
punished men who had become American citizens for acts
done in America. The outcry on the subject has, how-
ever, died away since the real nature of the convictions
is understood. Yet the incidents have called attention
to the fact that the law of naturalization and allegi-
ance, as it prevails in this country, is antiquated, and
not in accordance with the requirements of a time when
great masses of people are transferring themselves
from one part of the globe and one political community to
another. We believe that a protocol has beau signed
which will form the basis of more reasonable legislation.
There remains tire San Juan dispute, which nine years
ago almost brought the distant forces of the two countries
into armed conflict. Our interest in so remote a part of
the world has much lessened since then, and wo are con-
scious that a time is approaching when all the rights and
duties connected with it will be transferred to the Confe-
deration which has been established under the supremacy
of the Crown, but with all except nominal independence.
Yet it was desirable to bring the dispute to a close, and
the means suggested seem fitting enough. It is, we be-
lieve, the suggestion of the United States Government
that the subject should be submitted to the arbitration of
the President of the Swiss Confederation. As the arbitra-
tor on the larger question is to be a King, we see no ob-
jection to accepting for the' smaller a respectable Re-
publican magistrate, and shall be quite prepared to accept
his decision.

One or two inaccuracies have been attributed to
the above article. It is asserted that the Times is
incorrect in stating that the United States will not
press the question of the right of England to recog-
nize the Confederacy as belligerents, as the point
has not been given up at Washington, though the
American Minister has withdrawn that question for
specific reference to arbitration. The arbitrator
will have the whole correspondence between the
Governments submitted to him, and on that he will
decide. The Times has narrowed the arbitrator to
a European sovereign, but that is by no means the
case, as the words are, some sovereign or head of a
friendly State, in proof of which we quote Art. 4 of
the Treaty, which was signed last Wednesday :
"The Commissioners shall have power to adjudicate
upon the class of claims referred to in the official
correspondence between the two Governments as
the Alabama claims, but before any of such claims
are taken into consideration by them, the two high
contracting parties shall fix upon some sovereign or
head of a friendly State as an arbitrator in respect
of such claims, to whom such class of claims shall
be referred, in case the Commissioners shall be un-
able to come to an unanimous decision upon the
same."