The Burlington weekly hawk-eye. [volume] (Burlington [Iowa]) 1860-1876, 1864-02-06

1 lie
luminous diplomatic CORRESPONDENTS car
fail to be struck with the remarkaha
cnange Which, in the course Of the dipl0m.
; attic year November. 1S62-October. 1854
, has taken place in the attitude of the Rrit,'
ish Cabinet with regard to our country
we need not stop to prove this by elaborate
arguments; the fact is so obvious that fev
will be found to gainsay il. It is sufficient
to point to one well known fact. Toward
the close of the year the English Cabinet
ana, at the urgent request Of the Govern.
ment OF the United States. what at the be.
ginning OF the year they declared them.
selves unable to do--they stopped susni.
cious vessels, and required Of them salts
factory evidence that they were not IN.
tended for the Rebel service. Since the
stoppage of the Alexandra, no more Rebel
vessels have openly left England; from
which we naturally infer that if the Eng
llsh Government had acted similarly in tho
case OF the Alabama, one of the princinai
and most prolific causes Of irritation be-
tween the two countries would have been
avoided.
While the conversion OF the British Cab.
met 70 better principles II the neutrality
question has been .: cause of great rratis
cation to all desiring the continuance az
ainicabie relations between England and
the United states, the question remains To
be settled what ought England to do in
order 10 repair the great injuries inflicted
upon our commerce by the privateers built
IL English ports and mostly manned with
English seaElen. The Government Of the
United States has from the start assumed
the ground that England is clearly bound
to pay Us a full decentralization for all the
1 losses suffered by our commerce from
| these privateers. The reasons for this de-
mand made by the United States are elab-
orately developed in dispatch from Mr..
| Adams To Earl Russell, dated December
| 30 1862. Mr.. Adams shows that in 1874 the
! United States paid the indemnificaton de-
| manded by Great Britain for dcpredatioGs
| committed upon British commerce by
French cruisers fitted ont in the ports OF
the United States, and that, from the words
used upon this occasion by Mr.. Jefferson
the deduction appears To he inevitable that
the principle Of compensation in the case
derived its only force from the omission by
the United States 10 prevent a wrong done
10 the commerce Of a nation with which
they were AT peace.
OF still greater importance is il, that the
British Government Of that day considered
itself equitably entitled 70 full indemnify
not simply for the hostile acts OF French =
men in American ports, ont for the loss
and damage suffered On the high seas by
reason Of assistance rendered To them bv
citizens Of the United States. This, Mr..
Adams says, viii clearly appear by refer
enre to the fourth article o. the project Of a
treaty proposed by Lord GrenviiIe TO Mr..
Jay. On the Both Of Angus; 1874. The words
are these:
and it is further agreed .hat, if i. shall
appear that n the course OF the war loss
and damage have been sustained by bis
Maesty's subjects, by reason of the capture
o. their vessels and merchandise, such cap
ture having been made either within the
limits Of the Jurisdiction OF the said States,
or ~ rcss.ts armed IN the ports IT said States,
or by vessels commanded or OWned by the
citizens Of SAID StcteS, the United States will
make full satisfaction for such loss or dam
age, the same being to be ascertained by
commissioners in the manner already men,
toned in this article"
Earl Russell, in replying to the above
dispatch OF Mr.. Adams, has not word Of
explanation Of the British opinion Of 1894.
We must, therefore, infer that if he repudi-
ates the principle then formally laid down,
1t Is because il now happens TO operate
against England. He merely insists that
the English Government had done all that
was in lis power to prevent the sailing Of
the Alabama. "nO you mean, he asks
Mr. Adams, .'that her Maesty's Govern
ment, in constituting penal statute, or in
carrying into effect the provisions OF Pc
nal statute We're to hurry AT once to decis-
ion and to seize ship building and hitting
out at Liverpool, without being satisfied by
evidence that the provisions OF the Foreign
Enlistment act had been violated in the
Maesty's Government were to dispense
with proof, and TO infiict injury upon the
Queens subjects by seizing a ship upon
YOUR mere assertion that the owners of that
ship were violating the law"
The best answer to these queries, and the
best proof that in not stopping the Alabama
the English Government neglected to 40
its duty were a few months later given by
Earl Russell himself in stopping the Alex
andra.
The Government Of the United States did
not press the question to an immediate de-
csion. Mr.. Adams was instructed to pre-
sent a bill of differentiation for every fur
Their loss inflicted upon our commerce by
the Alabama and other rebel privateers
built in England. We do not wonder that
Earl Russell, as Mr.. Adams writes to Mr..
Seward, under date Of Sept. Is, became -
little sensitive to the multiplication Of the
claims for damages" He observed that
"such pretensions were entirely at va
Rance with the principles Of international
law and with the decisions Of American
Courts of the highest authorities" and, in
expressed hope that "Mr.
Adams might not be instructed again to
put forward claims which her MaiestyS
could not admit TO be found
ed on any grounds of law or Justice
Mr.. Seward, in reply dated Oct. 9, 1863,
briefly summed up the reasons upon which
he based the right of the United States to
claim indemnificatioD. He added, howev-
er, that "there is no fair and just form Of
arbitrament or reference TO
which we shall not he willing to submit
Lhem.''
This concludes the history of the indem-
nifty question as far as il can I've traced in
he published Volume Of Mr.. Stewards di-
plomatic correspondence. Our readers will
that there have not been want
ng IN England eloquent voices, which have
warned the Government OF England
against the consequence OF their allow.
ng the most palpable violation OF the neu-
raity law. We have published III our
columns the speech made by Mr.. Golden,
and letter from Prof y. W. Newman on
his question. We doubt not that the JUS
ice Of our claims, when the proper time
viii be thought to have come for demand
ng a settlement, will be admitted 10y all
ne impartial minds in England.-N. J.
Tribune.
TEACHING THE SLAVES TO REBEL.-t
IS a matter of grievous complaint among
the Rebels that wherever the Federal