Delaware State journal and statesman., 1865-12-01
THE UNITED STATES AND ENG
LAND.


BY late intelligence from England, VIC
learn that the further correspondence be-
tween Earl Russell and Mr.. Adams is pub
lished in the English journals. In the first
letter Earl Russell cautions Mr.. Adams that
any claims arising out of the depredations
committed by the Alabama cannot be sub
mitted to the proposed commission. To
this Mr.. Adams replies by asking what cases
will be so referred, and Earl Russell promi-
ses that an answer shall be sent shortly. In
anticipation of that, and by way of putting
on record justification of his policy during
the time that ho held the Foreign Seals, Earl
Russell writes long letter on the 3d inst,
reviewing his policy, and concluding with
the announcement that this a0W DO the last
opportunity Of reuorting to he subject In
this connection he contends that there is no
parallel between the conduct of France when
our American colonies revolted and that of
England during the recent rebellion, mas
much as England never conceded belligerent
rights to her colonies, while America did
concede them to the Confederate States.--
Next, with regard to certain regulations for
the prevention Of breaches of the foreign
enlistment act, which exist in America, but
not in our own country, Earl Russell con-
tends that these are really ineffective. This
was proved in 1850, he says, when privateers
issued from Baltimore to prey upon Portu-
guese commerce, grievance which the Por-
tuguese Government made the subject oi
formal representations that do not seem even
to have received any answer from the Gov
ment at Washington.
Next, with regard to the conduct of the
British Government, Earl Russell contends
that they have done all that they could do in
order to prevent the grievances complained
of, and in memorandum attached to the
letter he gives a summary of all the proceed
ings which have been taken under the For
eign enlistment act. Nevertheless, he will
not contend that the act is perfect. He
thinks the two Governments might wisely
determine to consider whether better mea
sure might not be devised.
THE SHENANDOAH.
The Times says:-
"The formal transfer of the Shenandoah
10 the Federal Government, and the releas,
of her officers and crew, have been followed
by the publication of Captain Waddell'
letter to Lord Russell. The consummatt
assurance displayed in this document is, t
say the least quite as unprecedented as thu
position in which Captain Waddell, by hi
own accounts finds himself placed.
One popularity of his narrative is that i
contains no allusion to the use by whicl
the Sea King was converted into the Shen
andoah, and equipped from, though not &c
tually within, this country. 1t merely re
cites that Captain Waddell Commissioned
the ship in October, 1864, under orders iron
the Naval Department of the Confederate
States, and proceeded to cruise against tn
commerce of the enemy.
Not word is said of his visit 10 Melbourn
or to any other events before his arrival, il
obedience to the same orders, in the Ochots
Sea and the Arctic Ocean. We earncst
hope that the officers and men of the Sher
andoah have not been liberated without CON
munication with Mr.. Adams.
1t is for the American Government cithC
to prosecute them under or law, or to clail
thent under the extradition' treaty. Captai
Waddell's own statements are not strictl
veracious, and if those made by the captai
of the General Pike be correct, his condu,
and language towards the unfortunate me
whom he captured in the whalers was sin
gularly brutal.
At present we decline to accept Captai
Waddells statements as true. We shoul
moi in the least have pitied Captain Wadde
Ind he fallen into the hands of the Amer
S'an Navy, and we should not pity him no
if he should be convicted of felony at con
mon law.