The Nashville daily union. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1862-1866, 1864-02-03
Our Claims Against EngIand for
Indemnity.

Gus diplomatic correspondence can fail TO
be struck with the remarkable change
which, in the course Of the diplomatic
year (November, 1862 October, 1887 ]
has taken place in the attitude Of the
British Cabinet with regard 10 our cOun-
try. We need not stop TO prove this by |
elaborate arguments; the fact is so OBJ
vious that feE will be found to gainssy |
1t. It is sufficient to point to one we'll
known fact Toward the close of the |
year the English Cabinet did, at the ur- |
gent request of the Government Of the |
United States, what at the beginning of /
the year they declared themselves unable |
to dO-they stopped suspicious vessels, |
and required of them satisfactory evi- |
dence that they were not intended for |
the Rebel service. Since the stoppage Of |
the Alexandra. no more Rebel vessels have
openly left England; from which we
naturally infer that II the English Gov /
ernment had acted similarly in the case
Of the Alsbams, one Of the principal and |
most prolific causes of irritation between
the two countries would hsvs been |
avoided.
While the conversion of the British /
Cabinet to better principles in the neu-
tralitv question has been cSuse Of great /
qualification TO all desiring the continu-
ance of amicable relations between Eng |
land and the United States, the ques-
ton remains to be settled what ought
England to do in order to repair the /
great injuries inflicted upon our COM
merce by the privsteers built in English
ports and mostly manned with English
seamen. The Government of the United 1
States has from the start assumed the i
ground that England is clearly bound to
pay us full naturalization for all the
lossessufered by our commerce from
these privateers. The reasons for this
demand made by the United States are /
elaborately developed in q dispatch from
Mr.. Adams to Earl Russell, dated Dec /
80, 1862 Mr.. Adams shows that in 1894 |
the United States paid the indemni6es-
tion demanded by Great Britain for /
depredations committed upon British /
commerce by French cruisers fitted out
in the ports of the United States, and /
that, from the words used upon this Oc-
easion by Mr.. Jefferson, the deduction
appears to be inevitable that the pTinci-
pie of compensation in the case derived
its only force from the omission by the
United States to prevent = wrong done TO
the commerce of q nation with which
they were at peace.
OF still greater Importance is il, that
the British government of that day con
sidered itself equitably entitled 10 full
indemnity not simply for the hostile acts
of Frenchmen in American ports, bat
for the loss and damage suffered on the
high seas, By reason of assistance render
ed to them by citizens of the United
States. This, Mr.. Adams says viii
clearly appear by reference TO the fourth
article of the project of treaty proposed
by Lord Grenville TO Ne. } az, on the
3Oth of August, 1874. The words are
these:
"And il is further agreed that, if il
shall appear thst in the course Of tbe war
loss and damage have been sustained by |
his Msjesty,s subjects, by reison of the
capture of their vessels and merchandise, |
such capture having been made either
within the jurisdiction of the said States,
or By vessels armed in the ports of said /
States, or by vessels commanded or own
ed by the citizens of said States, the
United States will make full satisfaction
for such loss or damage, the same being
70 be ascertained by commissioners in
the manner already mentioned in this
article"
Earl Russell, in replying to the above
dispatch of Mr.. Adams, has not = word
of explanation Of the British opinion Of
1854. We must, therefore, infer that If
be repudiates the principle then formally
laid down, it is because it now happens
to operate against England. He merely
insists that the English Government had
done all that was in its power to prevent
the sailing of the Alabama. "Do you
mean," he asks Mr.. Adams, "thst her
Msjesty's Government, in constituting q
penal statute, or in carrying into effect
the provisions of penal statute, were TO
hurry at once to decision, and 10 seize a
ship building and fitting out at Liver
pool without being satisfied bV evidence
that the provisions Of the Foreign Enlist
ment act had been violated in the case Of
such vessel? Do you mean that her
Msjesty's Government were to dispense
with proof, and to infict injury upon
the Queens subjects by seizing . ship
upon your mere assertion that the owners
of that ship were violating the laWF'
The best answer to these queries, and
the best proof that in not stopping the
Alabama the English Government neg
lected TO do its duty, were 3 few months
later given by Earl Russell himself in
stopping the Alexandra.
The Government Of the United States
did not press the question TO an immedi-
ate decision. Mr.. Adams was instructed
10 present = bill Of naturalization for
every further loss inflicted upon our com
merce by The Alabama and other Rebel
privatsers built in England. We do
not wonder that Earl Russell, as Mr..
Adams writes to Mr.. Seward, under date
of Sept 18, became = little sensible TO
the multiplication Of the claims for dam
ages" he observed that "such preten-
siona were entirely ct variance with the
principles of international law, and with
the decisions Of American Courts Of the
highest authorities" and. in conclusion,
expressed hope that "MF. Adams might
not be instructed again 10 put forward
claims which her Msjesty's Government
could not admit TO be founded on any
grounds of law or justice"
Ne. Seward, in reply dated Oct. 9
1863, briefly summed up the reasons upon
which be based the right Of the United
States 10 claim naturalization. He
added, however, that there is no fair
and just form Of conventional srbitrs-
meat or reference 10 which we shall not
be willing 70 submit them"
This concludes the history Of the in
demnity question as far as can be traced
in the published volume Of Mr. Stewards
diplomatic correspondence. Our readers /
will remember that thers have not been
wanting in England eloquent voices.
which have warned the Government Of
England against the consequences Of
their allowing the most palpAble viola /
ton Of the neutrality Law. We have
published in our columns the speech
made by Mr. Golden, and latter from
Prof. J. W. Newman on this question. (
We doubt nos that the Justice Of cur I
claims, when the proper time viii b. I
thought 10 have come for demanding .
settlement, viii be admitted By al tia
impartial minds in England-N y. Tn