Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1865-12-02
War Claims of the United states
.AgnInsf ENGLAND.

I. 1t is stated that MIR. Seward mas prepareu'
and submitted to his colleagues, reply to
Lord Russell's dispatch of August 80 on
the subject of the Alabama claims. Now,
1t happens by curious coincidence, Illus
trating the difficulty of conducting con-
troyersy across the Atlantic, that just when
Mr.. Seward was inditing this dispatch to
enliph:en Lord Russell, Lord Russell was
inditing another "to clear up some miScORcep-
tiops" of Mr.. Adams. The former appears
to have been read to the Cabinet at Wash
ington on the I'd of this month; the latter
is dated the Sd of this month, and appeared
in our columns last Monday. 1t is sup
plement to the correspondence already
published, and although it raises no fresh
issue. it certainly adds materially to the
strength of our own case. OF the two main
grievances alleged by Mr.. Adams, the pre-
mature recognition of the South and the
futility of the means employed by our Gov
ernment to prevent Illegal equipments, the
former had been 'e6ectualey negatired in the
previous discussion. There was no escape
from the argument that declaration of
blockade is an assertion of belligerent rights
at sea, and entities the party blockaded to
the character of naval belligerent On
the second point, however, Lord RusselPs
advantage was byno means so decisive, and
LIltTb WcTC SGNNldl ICJOi 70 ih vi .
Adams last letter, of September Is. To
these Lord Russell naturally addresses him
self in the rejoinder now before us, to which
isappended valuable memorandum, show
ing, in detail, how each supposed infraction
of the Foreign Enlistment act was dealt
with by her Majesty's Government.
The only precedent of any great value
adduced on either side was that ofthe famous
Portuguese claims on the United States.
The conduct of France during the War Of
Independence cannot really throw much
light on the question, being In some re-
Spects far more hostile to Great Britain
than was consistent with neutrality; while
in others it perhaps fell short of justice to
America. The Portuguese claims, on the
contrary, besides being more recent, are
also precisely analogous in their essential
conditions to those which Mr.. Adams p'akes
on behalf OF his Government. This, in fact,
is admitted on both sides but Mr.. Adams
contends, we think vainly, that what
America now demands is equivalent to what
she then conceded. His position seems to
to be this: That the United States "at once
recognized the validity of the remonstraRce
of Portugal" by first enforcing its existing
laws, and next increasing their stringency.
He allows that the laws, thus amended,
failed to check wrongful outfits, and that
further remOnstrances were met by Gisa-
vowal OF all responsibility on the part Of
the Executive, but he does not perceive
the damaging effect of these admissions.
Lord Russell hence takes occasion to press
home the parallel still more closely. He
poiuts out that the principle which the
Portuguese Minister sought to establish
was identical with that which Mr.. Adams
sought to establish, viz: the responsibility
of a neutral power for the acts of Its sub
jects, committed out of its Jurisdiction and
beyond its control. This principle was most
explicitly and strenuously repudiated by
the United States, so that it must be modi-
fled or varied in some way to justify the
present claims of the United States. But
can it be modified or varied? Only by lin
iting the allegation of responsibility to acts
committed within the jurisdiction and con-
troll of the neutral State. To this extent it
was accepted by the United States, and is
accepted by ourselves, and with the very
same reservation. We hold, as they held,
that our national liability is discharged
when our Legislature has enacted proper
laws against Illegal enlistments and equip
ments, and our Government has used due
diligence in prosecuting offenders under
them. If, by reason of delay in procur-
ing evidence, or its inadequacy to warrant
aconviction, the efforts of the Government
should prove unavailing, we deny that an
indemnity can be claimed from the nation,
and so did the United States under
the like circumstances. 1t is quite true
that, after the first representations of the
Portuguese Minister, they introduced new
clauses into their Foreign Enlistment act;
but it is equally true that the new clauses
proved wholly inefficaciOus, and that the
complaints of Portugal, instead of dimin-
ishing, increased in frequency. We have
only to examine these clauses, as they are
quoted by Lord Russell, to see how useless
tney would have been in the case of the
Alabama. One of them requires bonds to
be given by the owner of every armed
ship or vessel sailing out of the ports OF the
United States, belonging wholly or in part
to citizens thereof" to cruise against any
Power in amity with the United States
Assuming that proof of this last fact could
have been given, was the Alabama ian
armed ship" as she lay in the Mersey, and
could it have been shown that she belong
ed wholly or in part to British subjects-at
least If there had been any motive for eff
fecting a transfer to foreigners? Another
section inserted by Congress in 1878 en-
ables the Collectors OF Customs to detain
''any vessel manifestly built for warlke
purposes, of which the cargo
shall principally consist of arms and mu-
nitions of war;" when circumstances shall
render it probable that 1t Is designed for
warlike purposes, until the Presidents de-
cision shall be taken or bonds given by the
owners. Here, again, the very element of
uncertainty which made it impossible to
obtain the condemnation OF the Alexandra
Is imported by the words 'mdRifeStly built"
&C., While the provision withrespect to the
cargo affords fresh loophole for evasion.
Moreover, no power beyond that of exact
ing bonds is conferred on the Executive
Government, and this power can only avail
where funds are not forthcoming. Lord
Russell, therefore, has fair right to chal-
leDge the assumption that an assimilation
of our Foreign Enlistmentact to the Amer
lean would have prevented the dqpuluIn
which actually ensued to the United States.
Yet if it would not, there was no t,juridby
the confession OF Mr.. Adams himself, for
this is literally the only exception that he
can take to Lord Russell's adoption OF the
American doctrine. c sfa
If we descend from principles to facts, re-
membering hoto numerous and dctive toere the
Confederate agents in this country, we shall
rather wonder that such repeated attempts
were so rarely successful. We often speak
of the Alabama and her consorts, but we
must not forget that in. one essential par
tiehlar the Alabama stands alone. Shewas
probably the only vessel ultimately con-
verted into Confederate cruiser which 1T
would have been possible to detain under
our own or under the American Foreign
Enlistment act. The memorandum to
which we have referred gives a complete
list of all the vessels in respect OF which