New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1864-01-22

There would seem to he no answer IN snch iutuic
eases except that there Is obligation on the part OF
reat Britain put forth efforts adequate 10 the pre-
vention of such unlawful proceedings against friendly
nations. such principle, generally accepted py Nd
TONS would be followed by universal prncy and com
mercia States would be reqnired thereafter 10 conduet
their exchanges upon the ocean by the employment VI
armed vessels conveys. The President iees himself
all the more at liberty insist upon such measures oil
prey enOD because first, hcenso Ia such tralsact"n
would be- while II should continue only less ~
Great Britain than TO the United states 'e
sible commerce between the two nailohs oeht 'fuay
important both Of them. secondly because ~ Is man
ifestly the interest Of all commercial nations ,hat Wn
whether civil or international shall be closely conined
10 the parties who have voluntarily or necessarily ell
Flo osernmcnt is aware that tits said, that although
the "29O dispatched from British port YET sue
was nevertheless not ermed, equipped, and manned
within the port. But tie fact is undisputcd that she
issued from the port ard proceeded by preconcer TO
convenient station and that there she received hef
crew her equipment and her arms, ell OF which %ere
sent 20 her by the same British subjects VINO pu
and dispatched her In criminal law, an iiegsi trans
action ms IL IN the lees injurious 20 II ~ none the
less Illegal because its preparation "a broken up luto
parts and effected in several places Instead OF one sncb
subdivision being adopted simply. witha view to eyade
the law il fraudulent in itself and an eg.lavaiiou
rather than an cXtenustion Of the ofcnse.
With these explanations Of the views OF the President
which you may refrain rom using IN your nego
nations as you deem expedent leave the affair for
the present in Your able hands.
am Sir your obedient servant.
WILLIAM Ii. SEWARD.
tHAhiir fhAN'iS 1DAslr 'olff nv
TUE ENGLISH vIEw OF THE CASE.
Earl RasseH 10 Mr. Ada~s.
FOREIGN OFFICE, Dec 10, 1862.
Sir: have the honor Ia acknowledge the receipt OF
your letter Of tie 2h ultimo, in which under ns'ruc
iions from your Government, you submit for the con
sderalion Of her Majestys Government papers con
frminc the truth Of the allegations. which you made
some time ago the intention with which the vessel
Known AS the 900" hot called the Alabama, was
btied out Liverpool and you observe that those ale
cations now fully proved by the hostile procee"'hg'
! n .t.<,t taI Tpfta r.rfo
You pass in review the history Of the Alabama, DON
before and since she sailed from Liverpool and you sute
that the facts being admitted, they present 20 INC con
.ideraon Of all civilized countries series OF mover
questions Of the graycst character You say that II ~
obviously impossible 80 reconcile the liberation by a!
one nation OF similar undertakings IN Tvs own Pols
m, injury Of another nation with which II AT pace
with any known theory ~ moral or political ohhgauon
and YOU add with further observations III the same
sense that the recproeaion S sufm ~ scnp,v ,o
the end lead Ia tho utter sunNersloh oi al security !"
/ private property upon the ocean
Yon however cay that IL n ty mems Tour desire
10 imply intention ON the part 81 her Majesty GOV
eminent TO counensnce any such idea You admit that
vol, are AWARE Of the measures ADOPTED at very cary
date with reference 81 the Alabama. and OF tue order
subsequently issued dfs that vessel soon AZ legal
opinions were obiancd-or orders which was not posi-
bic for the authorities 10 execute because at The very
moment when they issued. the Alabama made her
! You finally staie that yon have been Instructed to
solicit redress for the national ana prsa. irurics aus
tanned by the proceedings Of ihia vessel m wei n
l
Beors proceed 10 eramiro the Justice Of these de-.
uands II will oe convenient that should advert u the
circumstances Ia which you call my attention as having
occurred sfter the breaking out Of tho French
rryolutonsry You observe that ON that occAson
reuon.truuces addressed 10y the British Govern
ment e. that Of the uted States respecting the hitting
ON. priva,ec~ "a United ssases poT,s 9Th ntent
to prey upon British commerce. and that the demand,
OF tho Britih Government were admitted by the United
State and formally recognized In the eth article
OF the treaty between tie two countries OF the lyth Of
November. l7es.
the history OF that remarkable period presents asiaio
II facts materially different from ihore relating To the
Alabama .
The Revolutionary Government Of France had openl,
moved it, determination 10 disr. gard al the principles
az international law which had been acknOv lodged by
civilized States and that Government proceeded TO put
In force its determination BY claiming To equip hs
matter q right and by actually equppng pryhieers In
the neutral ports Of the United States by sending those
priyaeers forth from those ports TO prey upon British
commerce by bringing prizes into the neutral ports
and by there going through some scsn forms OF adud'
cation. 49,
This WIS the ayowcd system upon which the agents
Of lgerent France claimed to act and upon which
owing 10 the temporary superiority OF her naval iotce
they did for short period act IN ne neutral P'is ana
wsiers Of the United States Notwithstanding the re-
monstrances OF the United States Government.
II was these several facts namely The open and deb
crate eouipment Of privaeers In American ports BY the
French tho capture 81 those priyateers OF British
vessels Ia United States waters. and the bringing them
prizes into United states ports, "hc i"ru'u cuute
tiyey the basis Of tho demands made by tie British
tentinres Those demands had reference not 10
The accidental evasion OF municipal law OF the it"d
States by particular ship. but to systematic dsre
card Of international law upon hOo OF the moi import
ant points Of neutral obligation.
Ifis IL apparent from the whole correspondence Of
the British Government with the Government OF the
United State, and from the replies Of Mr. Jefferson Ia
! Mr. Hammond. the British Minister Consequently
neither tho complaints OF the British Government In
1893 nor the treaty OF 1924 have any bearing upon the
question now under discussion
With regard 10 the clain for compensation now put
forward by the United States Government It Is re,
1et TO say notorious that the Queens proclamation Of
The 18Th OF May ls6l enj0ning neutrality in the unfOr
Inmate civil contest In North America has in several
instances been practically set at naught by parties IN
this country. On the one hand vast supplies oil arms
and warkc stores have been purchased in this country
and have been shipped from British ports 10 New York
for the use Of the Omitted States Government; on the
other hand munitions Of war have found their way from
ths country TO ports In possession oil Tie Government Vi
the -o.stylod Confederate States.
The eyasions Of tho neutrality prescribed by The
Queens proclamation have caused Ter MaJc'tys Gov
eminent auch concern but II Ii not dcut 10 account
for what has occurred.
| Such shipments as have spoken OF may be effected
without any breach 0f municipal Law and commereinl
ENTERPRISE In ths country, as elsewhere, is always
ready TO embark in specatioDs offering prospect Of
success. or in which at all events the promise VI gam
ia supposed TO be greater than the risk Of loss.
British subjects who have engaged IN such enter
nrisea have been ef by her MnJestys Government To
abide the penalty attaching TO their disregard Of tho
Queens proclamation Of neutralty that penalty Dcihg
by international law, the condemnation prl1c-O war
OF vessel and cargo captured by belgsrnnt cruiser
and only condemned in IA competent prize court.
Her Majesty's Government nevertheless, hvaied
Themselves Of every ntting opportunity 10 discourage
Illustration Of the truth Of this 10 the answer which
caused 10 b. returned the 9th ofJuy 10 memorial
from British merchants and shipowners at Liverpool
i Ill. Al .ul.t lu Tfl.