New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1864-01-28
OUR CLAIM AGAINST ENGLAND
FOR INDEMNITY.


No reader of Mr.. Stewards voluminous diplo-
matte correspondence can fail to be struck with
the remarkable change which. in the course OF
the diplomatic year November, 1562--Octobcr,
1869, has taken place in the attitude of the
British Cabinet with regard to our country. We
need not stop to prove this by elaborate argu-
Inrnts; the fact is so obvious that few will he
found TO gainsay it. 1t is sufficient to point to
one well-knOwn fact. Toward the close Of the
year the English Cabinet did, at the urgent
request Of the Government of the United States,
what at the beginning Of the year they declared
themselves unable TO do--they stopped suspi-
cious vessels, ard required Of them satisfactory
evidence that they were not intended for the
Rebel service. Since the stoppagc Of the Alex
andra, no more Rebel vessels have openly left
England; from which We naturally infer that if
the English Government had acted similarly in
the case Of the Alabama, one OF the principal
and most prolific causes Of irritation between
the two countries would have been avoided.
| While the conversion of the British Cabinet
to better principles in the neutrality question
has been cause Of great qualification to all de-
string the continuance of amicable relations be-
tween England and the United States, the ques'
ton remains to be settled what ought England
TO do in order to repair the great injuries in-
aicted upon our commerce by the privateers
built in English ports and mostly msnned with
English scamcn. The Government oil the
United States has from the start assumed the
ground that England is clearly bound to pay us
a full indemniicaiion for oil the losses suffered
By our commerce from these prvateers. The
reasons for this demand made BY the United
States are elnborately developed in u dispatch
from Mr.. Adams to Earl Russell. dated Dec.
80, 1862. Mr.. Adams shows that in 1874 the
United States paid Standardization 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 occasion by Mr.
Jefferson, the deduction appears to be inevitable
that the principle of compensation III the case
derived its only force from the omission by the
United States TO prevent wrong done 10 the
commerce Of nation with which they were al
peace.
OF still greater importance is il, that the
British Government of that day considered itself
oquitably entitled TO full indemnity, not simply
Cor the hostile acts of Frenchmen in American
ports, but for the loss and damage suffered on
the high seas by reason Of assistance rendered
10 them by citizens of the United States. This,
Mr.. Adams says, will clearly appear By refer.
ence to the fourth article of the project of q
treaty proposed by Lord Grenvile TO Mr.. Jay,
on the 30th OF August, 1894. The words are
these:
Ani ui- further agreed that 1t ha appear that in the
of the war los. and damage have been sustained by his
Mesys subjects BY of the capture OF their vessels
and merchandise, such capure having been msde ether
within the limits d the jurisdiction OF the ssd States or ~
tes.es armed ne orfs 0 sad State or BY vessels com
u,udd or olonsd ty The eifiss II said States The uni'rc
States will make full satisfaction for such loss or damage The
u, being to be ascerned by commissioners IL the nsnner
already mentioned in this article
Earl Russell, in replying to the above dis
patch of Mr.. Adams, has not word OF explana-
ton of the British opinion of 1894. We must,
therefore, infer that if he repudiates the princi'
Die tnbu lOfulhii! ioiu uo"H, ~ ." SS~""S~ 50
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 MIR. Adams "that her Majesty's Govern
ment, in constituting penal statute, or in car
rying into effect the provisions OF apenal stat
ute, were to hurry at once to decision, and to
seize ship building and fitting out at Liver
pool without being satisfied by evidence that
the provisions Of the Foreign Enlistment act
had been violated in the case of such vessel
Do you mean that her Hajesty's Government
were to dispense with proof, and to infict. in
Jury upon the Queens subjects by Selling a ship
upon your mere assertion that the owners OF
that ship were violating tho law'"
The best answer to these queries. and tbs
best proof that in not stopping the Alabama the
English Government neglected to do Its duty.
were few months later given by Earl Russell
himself in stopping the Alexandra.
The Government of the United States did
not press the question to IN immediate decision.
Mr.. Adams was instructed to present . blu Of