Baltimore daily commercial. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1865-1867, 1865-11-08
DAILY COMMERCIAL.
BAL TIMORE, MD.
ENGLAND's REFUSAL OF AnBITRA.
TINS.

TGOS-
The substance of the correspondence be-
tween Mr. Adams and Lord Russellis summed
up by the London Times in few words Mr..
Adams demands on the part of the United
States, indemnity for the injuries sustained by
their commerce through the ravages of the
Shenandoah Alabama, and other Confederate
vessels, fitted out in British harbors, and offers
TO refer the question to arbitration Lord
Russell refuses the claim, declines to refer the
matter to arbitration, but offers to submit to a
commission any matter upon which the two
governments are agreed
On this subject of Commission" the
Times ''can hardly doubt that the proposal
will ultimately be accepted as the most satisfac
tory method of adjusting the outstanding
claims between the two nations" And it adds;
''tor it must not be forgotten that we, too,
have long bills against lie ERited States for
damages incurred by British subjects during
the war;
The truth is, that Lord Russell's refusal of
mediation excludes from consideration more
than nine-tenths ofthc claims of American citi-
Zens; so that the proposed commission would
have before it only the one-sided business of
settling those 'long bills of British subjects,
which the Times tells us smust not be forgotten,
and which are said TO be of formidable magni-
tude
This, no doubt, would be very agreeable
prospect to British subjects, and we can easily
understand Lord Russell's readiness to con-
sent to Commission" of the kind he pro
poses. But the question naturally comes up:
will our Government consent to a commission
for the examination and settlement of the
claims of British subjects, so long as England
refuses to submit to arbitration the claims of
Americans, plundered by cruisers fitted out
from British ports? In reference to the new |
sprung zeal of the Times in denouncing Wad- |
dell, of the Shenandoah, as a pirate, and |
urging the authorities to send fleet to stop |
his career, the London Ncws pointedly re- |
marks: ut is neither just nor dignifcd for |
those who maintained the right of the South |
TO build men-ot-war for themselves in British |
ports, now to recommend that these vessels |
should be destroyed as pirates.'
Since the British Government declines to
enter into the question of any compensation
for our losses by Anglo-rebel cruisers, the
inquiry, We say, becomes very interesting
whether our own Government will not decline
looking at that ''long bill which we are told
that British subjects have against us on account
of our naval and military operations. And
should that refusal be persisted in on our part,
what will Lord Russell and the Times conclude
to do about it? Our own opinion is that they
1r;ll oCnolr,Jo - mill la do |
all, and Just let the discussion drop.
" We cannot Of course tell, says the Times,
- in what spirit the Government of the United
" States are disposed to receive the final and
" deliberate refusal of the British Government
/" to entertain in any shape the claims they put
. forward. We can only say, on our part,
I" that we are quite sure our Government may
depend upon the support of the nation in
:" maintaining the position it has taken up"
Such is the general tone of the English
press-even of those journals that were friend
ly to us during the war. We do not appre-
hend that hostilities between thetwo countries
will grow out of this attitude of the British
Government and people. Not improbably our
government will be willing to offset the British
claims which Lord Russell wishes to submit
to arbitration. As we have already limited,
there would be little doubt that England
would be glad TO get out of the scrape as cas-
lily as she might, by thus waving the whole
question of claims
But it cannot be left out of sight that Eng
land is putting ''rancors in the vessel of her
peace" for the future, in yielding to us her
precedent for the Guidance of nputralS towards |
belligerents. The payment of the claims for
depredations by Anglo-rebel cruisers would be
a mere bagatelle compared with what England
would have to suffer in the event of war be.
tween her and and any European power. Our
ship-b builders and seamen, armed with Lord
Russell's letters on bellgerent rights could,
in such an event, sweep the seas of British
commerce, and pick up more plunder than
Semmes or Waddell ever dreamed of. Candid
Englishmen cannot but admit, that the British
government, in refusing our oyertures for
making privateering piracy and in setting
swift example for the acknowledgment of in
surrectionists as belligerents, and in allowing
them to fit out privateerS from British ports
and man them with British subjects have |
adopted policy, which, however gratifying to
their hopes of contributing to our national
downfall at the time, threatens their future, in
the event of war, with inconceivabe trouble,
disaster and loss. Knowing that we have her
own fearful precedent for our rule and excuse,
England must, in the event of her failure to
do us justice, continue to fear and TO hate us
more heartily than ever before.