The Sun.
London, England, 1868-01-21 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING,

LORD HOBART ON THE ALABAMA

CLAIMS.

Lord Hobart, commenting on the despatch from
Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams, dated the 29th of No-

vember, breaking off the negotiations between this
country and the United States respecting the Ala-

bama difficulty, writes to the Times : —There can
be no doubt that the failure of these negotiations
means nothing less than unfriendly relations be-
tween Great Britain and the United States ; that
unfriendly relations meant the risk—more or less

imminent —of war ; and that war between

Great Britain and the United States would be

a calamity as great as any which could afflict the

world. But there is a consideration more itnme-

diately urgent which enhances the evil. The Gover-
nment of the United States has hitherto loyally done
its duty to this country in regard to the proceedings
of Fenianism within their dominions, but it plainly
enough intimates in this correspondence that it
may now be obliged to conform its principles
and policy to those which it considers to have
been the principles and policy of this country
during the American civil war. Nothing else is
wanting to make Fenianism, which Is now only
troublesome and vexatious, serious and formid-
able. It is most important that the people of
this country should clearly understand the posi-
tion in which they are placed in reference to this
subject. When all deduction is made for faults of
national character there is in the generality of Eng-
lishmen a fund of good sense and right feeling which
would, if only they were fully instructed as to that
which the Government of the day were doing, or
about to do, prevent, as I believe, any very great
or frequent errors in our foreign policy. Three-
fourths of the wars in which this country has been
engaged would have been impossible if the nation
could have been made fully aware of what was tak-

ing place in the " drifting" period. But blue books
are tardy of appearance, inaccessible to the gene-
ral public, and unalluring to the repre-
sentative mind. The matter, then, stands thus :
The United States Government has pressed upon
the British Government a formidable list of claims
on account of losses inflicted upon American citizens
by the depredations of the Alabama and other ves-
sels of her class, and has at the same time stated
very clearly the grounds on which it urges the settle-
ment of those claims. Those grounds are recapitu-
lated by Mr. Seward in his despatch of Aug. 27,
1866, and are shortly as follows :—That by the
Queen's proclamation of 1861 belligerent rights were
certainslavleahwolfduilng Statesthen wrongfullyiu iu su
rcroenect
ieudne d
at go a
iust
their
Govern-
ment ; that in consequence of such concession those
States
other advantages, power
to m
and to seize and as s u obtained,
e a
national
fig a g
de-
stroy goods and shipping of the United States ;
that thereupon, from the very nation which had
mainly occasioned this injustice, there proceeded
swift and powerful vessels of war, which became
the recognised property of the insurgents, and in-
flicted enormous injury upon American trade and
navigation ; that, to prevent such vessels from
leaving her shores, no serious, or, at least, no suf-
ficient effort was made by the Government of this
country—that, moreover, such vessels were re-
peatedly harboured and protected in various ports
of Great Britain and her colonies, and that Great
Britain owes to the United States indemnity for the
losses which have thus been sustained. The British
Government, while refusing to admit the validity of
this reasoning,offers to refer the question to arbitra-
tion ; but on one condition—that in the case sub-
mitted to the arbiter no account shall be taken of the
recognition of the insurgent States as belligerents
by the royal proclamation of 1861. On this condi-
tion it insists, because it considers that the question
as to the legality or propriety of that recognition is
of a kind upon which " every State must be held to
be the sole judge of its duty." The United States,
on the other hand, while assenting to arbitration,
desire that the " whole controversy" may be referred
to arbitration as it stands, not for decision upon its
merits, but in order that their demand for compen-
sation may be laid before the arbiter accompanied by
the arguments on which it is founded. It comes,
then, to this, that the British Government has re-
fused, not only to yield to the demand of the
United States, but to submit the case, except in
als veryth partial
eßritis and
n l
nation
prienpliated red
to accept
to
arbitration.tueresp
uu-
aseo
oixfboi
existing
alti
bfi t
egr ?e
mii
is one
etTol t
ehopeooddt;ev,hceielorxi ngebeipteottnouocsrofeenwfiyopausl
war, of
NotVefoiotashase
dittdhtoelepi
rnrt
gei
tqt
htuuhei
esniortetiloalyn
dis-
pute is quite another. Arid it may well be asked
it
st ieorni oufs tl
oh
ses Snonudt hi naj
us
rbyeullpi goenr eanftr,
whether, if a question such as that of the recogni-
einnfldilcytiSntgatase, be not
a proper subject for arbitration, any great question
of foreign policy can never hereafter be decided
by any other than those time-honoured but some-
what illogical authorities—bullets and cold steel.
IptiartilsieinplrBosto6cothlseraupsptuenuddsedretcourdtehde, Donectlnaeraptinornt
ooff
the four great Powers signitaries of that declara-
tion, the unanimous expression of a hope that in
future nations will, before declaring war, refer
the matter in dispute to the judgment of a neutral
State. It was a British Minister who proposed that
momentous paragraph ; it is the British Govern-
ment that now, on the first opportunity for apply-
ing it, protests against its application. But Go-
vernments have short memories; and it is perhaps
not surprising, under their guidance, to find a nation
which, a decade ago, appeared in the character of
general peacemaker and advocate of mutual conces-
sion insisting, at the possible cost of a fra-
tracidal war, on the most extreme and rigorous
theories of national sovereignty. There is, how-
ever, no need to rely upon this argument. For in
the present case it happens that no one proposes that
any decision shall be pronounced upon the right of
Great Britain to recognise the belligerency of the
South. The United States do not require—on the
contrary, they expressly exclude from their require-
ments—any such arbitrament. Upon the particular
question to be submitted to the arbiter, which is the
question whether compensation is due to the United
States for the losses inflicted by the Alabama
and her coadjutors, both nations are agreed.
That such an arbitration may be resorted to
without prejudice to national dignity both
are also agreed. But one of them demands that
certain facts and inferences which the other
considers material to the issue shall be excluded
from the case laid before the arbiter, simply be-
cause his decision might otherwise be influenced by
the solution, in the hidden recesses of his own mind,
of a question upon which " every State must be the
sole judge of its duty." The decision given by the
arbiter will amount, neither directly nor indirectly,
neither expressly nor by implication, to any opinion
upon that question. He may consider it ; he may
arrive at a conclusion upon it, and his decision
may be influenced by that conclusion. But what
that conclusion is, whether he has been able to
form one, or whether he believes that the question
has any such bearing upon the particular issue re-
fsdoenerreroewgdai
lttloe
efhvrioemmr a
knn
aot htwiao. ta ha
Ale
enhteos eaadonacdor
honour,
oiadrvde res i
supposedtthart 0
throughout
all time, been guarded against or avenged at a ter-
rible cost to the world ; this is probably the first
time that it has been thought necessary to defend
national honour at the risk of the most calamit-
ous consequences against the secret thoughts of the
heart. I trust that it may not be even now too
late to hope for a renewal of the negotiations.
Will the English people, tacitly acknowledging the
morbid sensibilities imputed to it by its rulers, or
actuated by the childish fear of being thought afraid,
allow itself to be committed to an irreconcilable
quarrel with a nation of whose friendship it stands
just now peculiarly in need, and to be at peace
with whom is of incalculable importance to itself
and to the world ? or will it insist on the settlement
by way of arbitration, without captious and sensi-
tive reservations, of a question which ought not to
he kept open for a single day, and which an im-
partial tribunal can alone satisfactorily decide?

1.3,13

An invitation has been sent from Berlin toMunich,
Stuttgart, and Carlsruhe, to send delegates to Berlin, for
the purpose of deliberating on the foundations of the new
postal treaty with Switzerland. The Norwegian Govern-
ment has opened negociations for a new postal treaty, and
has for this purpose sent Herr Rye to Berlin.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION AD
ALBANY ON THE JUDICLIRY.

Since the article of last July in the North Ameri-
can Review, preferring grave and sweeping imputa-
tions upon the administration of justice in New
York, more than ordinary attention has been directed
to the Judiciary. The Constitutional Convention at
Albany has given much time to the discussion of the
subject. Judge Daly, of New York City, argued
that the courts ought to be so thoroughly upright
and independent that no one could even suspect
them of corruption or favouritism ; and alluded to

the article in the North American Review as an
example of charges against the administration of

justice in New York, which, though proceeding
from a respectable quarter, still remained un-
answered. Such an event under the old julicial
system was unknown, and the mere fact of wide-
spread doubt as to the probity of any of the judges
was strong evidence not of the want of integrity in
the particular persons who might be suspected,
but of the defects of a system which left room for
suspicion.
Mr. Schumacher declared the article to be a foul
libel by a notorious corruptionist and an Eng-
lish ticket-of-leave man ; " the former referring,

we understand," says the Nation, " to an eminent
lawyer whose worst enemies do not suspect him of
the slightest use of corrupt influences, and the lat-
ter to a well-known literary man of perfectly re-
spectable character, who, we have good reason to
believe, had no more to do with the article in
question than Mr. Schumacher himself. This per-
sonal abuse was the staple of the argument in de-
fence of the judiciary of this city."
Although a general assertion was made that the

article in question was false and scandalous, yet, it
is well known that many of the charges are true.
The Nation asserts that the line of argument pur-
sued by those who vindicate the existing order of
things is personal abuse, which is attempted to be
justified by the fact that the imputations so met are
themselves attacks on personal character. Charges
of corruption must necessarily be personal. It will
not do to argue that the accuser is unworthy of be-
lief because he makes such charges. It must be
clearly made out, if the defence be based on this,
otherwise it is reasoning in a circle of the worst
kind.

"The fact is, that the rumours affecting the integ-
rity of the courts, which are now so widespread,
have originated among the most reputable members
of the bar, and are most firmly believed by the best
classes of citizens. The deterioration of the courts
in this city is so universally admitted by all who
deal with them that it is impossible to find a respect-
able lawyer who doubts it. Indeed there has not
thus far been found any man, respectable or other-
wise, who will publicly assert the contrary. It can-
not be said that this is a mere result of a lawyer's
habitual reverence for the past, for there is no want
of commendation of the new system in those por-
tions of the State where it has worked well. The
lawyers of those sections are so zealous in their sup-
port of the elective system as to constitute the
greatest obstacle to any change in the mode of select-
ing judges. Why it is that the bar of New York city
presents an almost solid front in favour of a life-
tenure, and that the great majority of that bar,
without reference to party lines, are in favour of an
appointed rather than an elected judiciary ? Obvi-
ously because their experience has taught them that
a steady and uniform administration of justice is
not to be had under the present system. Even those
men who make a profit out of the corruption and
favouritism which are now rife feel that their hold is
uncertain, that some new power may come in suscept-
ible to new and adverse influences. They are not,
therefore, so unwilling to consent to reform as might
be expected, especially if they are men who could
command a good practice under a better system. The
great obstacle to reform at present lies among the
lawyers and farmers of the rural districts, among
whom justice is satisfactorily administered, and who
do not come in contact with the abominations which
sicken the city practitioner. But they will surely
suffer in time from the taint of maladministration in
so important a part of the State as the city of New
York. Indeed, it is well known that the same in-
fluences which have degraded justice there, are work-
ing gradually into the rural districts, and although
there is at present no reason to suspect that any-
thing more than favouritism has obtain a foothold
in the courts outside of the city, yet there is an
entering wedge which may yet lead to worse

results.
We believe that the Convention has not yet made
a final decision against a long tenure of judicial
office. We hope that it will yet decide in favour of
it. For bad as affairs are in the city, they must
steadily grow worse for many years to come under a
system of frequent elections. The immense tide of
immigration mast and will carry the moral tone of
the city lower and lower during the next twenty or
more years. Some improvement takes place amongst
the settled population, but not enough to counter-
balance the effect of the flood of ignorance that is
annually poured in. Weak as are the courts now,
they will be filled with weaker or worse judges at
every succeeding decade, and the bar would far
rather let the courts stand exactly as they are than
have new judges introduced from time to time
during the next twenty years under the elective

system.
'We cannot close without saying that several jud

cial officers in the Convention deserve credit for
the stand which they have taken upon this ques-
tion. Judge Monell, we know, and Judge Garvin,
we believe, voted for Mr. Evarts's proposition of a
life-tenure for judges. But to Judge Daly especial
credit is due for the courage with which he acknow-
ledged the defects of a system of which he consti-
tutes a part, and the earnestness with which he
strove to accomplish a thorough reform. The fact
that such a man is able to retain his place upon the
bench is about the best argument that can be made
for the present system. If all our judges were as
able and as upright, we should be well satisfied with
an elective judiciary.