New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-05-24

hin. While the principle Of the Nv Of ns.en, - vheA
y0ui article rvfers Nss not mpsgssd Nor IVES svs1
questioned by the counsel on either sils, N he
Gear. Of Claims st Washington, where the hahihty q
Portugal was the ground Of reclamation By the ovse
CD the United States.
The statement a. it will be found in he works sbovo
referred TO, is as follows
"a case of violation Of neutral territory =
the dsstructop in che hsrbor Of Fsysl 6ePsmosrs
lsl4 az the American privsteer General ArneroeGs
nv an Fl slish equadron. Reclamations, founded -
il, were made against the Govsrnment OF Portusais
which were, by the ID Art Of the Tresdy OF the .%a
Of February $751; agreed 10 be submitted 70 the 9s.
tr.tion of a Sovereign Potentate or CHIT Of seuo
nation in amiiy with both the high contracting
Under this provision, Louis Napoleon, the
the Frer ch Republic, wasselectedss Aroitrstos meg.
is sone discrepancy between the American stssemess
and the summary Of facts on which the award pro.
ceeds. The Prince Preside nj, however, IN ponosncn6
that 10 indemnity was due from Portugal, doee no6
derry tie responsibility Of neutral TO make compen-
sation 20 belg.rent whose property has been cap.
tured or DESTROYED within its jursdctional limits ~
the opposing begerept but he bases DIS deeisfoa %
the assumed fact that the American Commander had
lot spilled from the beginning, fer the intervenuo1
of the neutral sovereign but by having reco ave 70
arms 10 rspel an unjust aggression Of which ne Pre-.
tended 10 be the object be had himself failed 70 respect
the neutrality OF the territory OF The foreen sovsfegns
and had thereby released that severe from the eo-
caron 10 eficrd him protection by sny other means
than that Of pacific interventon and that the Poru-
guese Government could net be held Responsible soe
the result of the collision which took place IN con.
tempt Of it's rights of sovereignty and 10 vioston q
the neutrality of its territory, and without the local
officers being required in proper time, to grant the ~
cestsIy aid and protecuon
Irefer in my note TO the award itself, which viii b
und in The Congressional document, which 10 cited ia
the proper place.
The case Of the General Armstrong wa q violations
Of neutrality in time OF war; bu. would be easy -
accumulate authorities TO show that every nation Y
bound to provide for the police OF It's marlboro 10 peace
rs well a. in war In time Of II is OF only 70
the Neutral that the begerent whose rights have been
violated can ADDRESS himself; but whatever, urder ex-
,ing crcumst ances may be our claim for the rjary
as ssanst Eng and, it does not relieve Spain from her
responsibility The anomalous character Of the Otto
man Government in relation 10 the Franks IN Tatkey,
was avowedly the only reason why the controversy
grown out of the difficulties between Capt. Ingraham
and the commander Of the Austrian bfgofwer, in ref-
.rence TO Koszta was carried on without any appeal
| to- OF interpositon of the Porte.
The venerable Secretary of S,ats-than whom as
bic memorable protest to II. Guzot against the Qurn.
tuple treaty Of 1871 shows one more thoroughly
understands the relative rgbts and duties Of nsssss
especially as regards all questions Of visitation and
| sesrch"-requires no vindcstion Of bis diplomatic
papers, Being however accidentally in this city, and
having had your article brought particularly to my
notice as one in no wire cCsd with the politics Of
the day but involving grave questions Of International
law have been induced to send you the above ref
erence 10 Wheatons Notes and Pbimore, affecting
the views that you take OF the General Armstrong cass
and the inference that you deduce from Il.
Very respectfully w. b. LAWRENCE
Ntr York AO.tL May Il, ia,a
Mr.. LawreDce's implication that any latitude
4" of discussion" inconsistent with absolute anA
| uniform truth, is to be allowed in domestic any
more than in international politics, We utterly 70
pudiate. We accept his statement Of tho srounA
| on which Louis Napoleon decided the Gen. Arm.
strong case against us, though Il reflects little erc-
| dit on the arbiter. That vessel assAled in peu.
trail harbor under cover Of night BY several boat
loads of armed men, must submit TO capture snA
slaughter or forfeit her right to protection or in
demnty is q monstrous sbsurdity. Suppose Aee
British sssailants, being upresisted, had sunk the
Gen. Armstrong with all on board, what thenf
How could commander Of privateer, suddenly
assailed under cover Of darkness, a. Cspt. Reid
was, apply to the authorities Of the port for pro-
tectiOnl He had probably not five minutes left in
which to choose between bloody res stance And
the loss of bic vessel The decision, on the ground
here indicated, is prepOsterous.
That neither Capt Reid nor the U. s. ofdcer
who appeared before our Claim Commissioners
against him should here set up the nonGsbilty Of
Portugal, 10 very easily accounted for. Tho former
was not very likely to destroy bis own case, while
our Government could not well deny in ts OWE
court what it had been confidently affirming to for
eisn Cabinets for thirty odd years.-Ed.]