The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1865-06-15

claimed for damage to our maritime COM
merc, by the Alabama, as far as they have
bean Aevelosed by discussions In the British
Parliament and press, have assumed q rather
amicable,ehape. The shutting excuse of Earl
Russell. nat the vessel was fitted out in On
Eno,;sb poNt as "merchant ship" and was
afterwards ca inverted into ship-ofwar outside
the ;urisdictio>, Of British courts, is but poor
subterfuce In DO face Of established facts,
showing that rebel privateers were manned aad
fitted out with their >armaments by British sub
jects We might ask why were they not seized
as yiolators of internatio nal law at the distant
ports under British jurA 'diction, when they
stopped for coal and repaA rs' which they ne
quently did, after they becan'e vessels-orwar'
and their depredations upon our Commerce were
known However, II may be admitted thas
there were some instances Of friendly actions
on the part of British authorities, which might
In a measure redeem that government from the
charge Of persistent hostility to our cause. For
example, II has just been discovered, BY the
seizure Of some rebel documents, that pirate
which had been forbidden to receive coal by
the military authorities at Halifax, and subse-
quently got q supply surreptitiously, was COM
PEELED to discharge her cargo; and 1t Will
be remembered that another blockade run
ner, in the same port was compelled
by the same authority TO haul down
her flags when the news Of President Lin
coins assassination reached there. These are
little acts Of grace which, while they do not
actually exonerate England from the guilt
Of treschery towards our government during
the war, still place her In somewhat agreeable
contrast with France concerning her action In
fitting out the Stonewall, and otherwise, even
to the bitter end, maintaining hostile position
towards the cherished principles Of the Monroe
doctrine.
There are many questions of international
law to be settled, of which the case Of the Ala
bama is but the beginning. We claim indem-
nifty from England for damages, and 1t appears
that she presents counter-claims against U.s.
Very we'll, we are resolved to have our claims
settled, and II England can establish the valid
ity Of any claims justly due, no doubt they will
be legitimately satisfied There has been a
great deal written on International law by such
writer's a. Vattel Puhendorf and host of
others, and their dicta have been very good in
theory and have formed convenient guides from
time to time. But 1t happens that when great
war like this of ours, or others which preceded
It have occurred, nations have accommodated
themselves to the events Of the time, and the
theorists have had to succumb to the practical
rulos at the moment governing the necessities
of commerce, the interests and prejudces OF
the nations involved.
Arising out of this war, then, wo see the
necessity of establishing definite and perma-
nent international law, about the understand
Ing OF which there can be no mistake. We are
now great maritime nation. Our interests on
the sea, or our relations under every form Of in
ternational comfy, are second to none. There
fore 1t rs eminently proper that we should ask
for convention Of oil the great maritime ma
lions of the world, and settle finally upon some
law which will admit Of no plastic application
to this or that interest, but will be firm and
enduring, easy Of comprehension and binding
upon all. We are in position to require this
course Of action; and we hope that the govern
ment at Washington will see that this vexatious
question is definitely settled, so that we shall
have no more trouble about maritime rights or
International law for the next century at least.
After that, new circumstances may arise to re-
quire modification, for which, Of course, the
world will be quite prepared.