The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1865-10-25

relative to our claims for property destroyed
by the Anglo-rebel pirates and the reply of
the British government Is quite important, II
not serious. The correspondence between our
Minister, Mr.. Adams, and Earl Russell on the
subject Is published in the London Gozette
And from the manner In which the press Of
England treats the matter its importance u
evidently understood on that side the Atlantic.
We do not wish to create any unnecessary
anxiety, and still hope an amicable solution of
the difficulty may be found; but we cannot dis-
guise the fact that the reply Of the British Minis
ter to the demands madeby Mr.. Adams seems to
be peremptory, and, we might say, almost over
bearing. This appears the more remarkable
when we consider the length Of time Earl Rus
sell took to answer the communication Of Mr.
Adams. The first letter Of our Minister, dated
the 7th Of April, was not answered till the 4th
Of May, and the second, dated the .4th Of
May, the same day Earl Russell's reply was re-
ceived, was not answered till three months
afterward. We may conclude, then, that the
matter received the most thorough considera-
ton. ~
The matter In dispute is pretty well under
stood by tho American people, and We need
only advert toft briefly. Mr. Adams informed
Earl Russell that our government could not
avoid making England responsible for the
damages caused by the Alabama, or other
cruisers, which went out OF British ports to
prey upon our commerce. Earl Russell docs
not admit the responsibility, and declines to
refer The dispute to urbitrafion, arguing that
the British government was justified In
recognizing the rebels as belligerents, and
that it did not act in bad faith in main
tanning the neutrality It protested. He says,
however, her Majesty's government care ready
to consent to the appointment Of a commission,
to which shall be referred all claims arising
during the late civil war which the two Pow
crs shall agree to refer to the commissioners.
slr. Adams minated in his answer to this that
he thought the proposition of Earl Russell to
refer the questions in dispute 70 a commission
would not be accepted by the United States
government. This is the substance of tho cor
respondence, and here the matter rests. We
learn from Mr.. Seward, however, in his oracu-
lar speech at Auburn, the other day, that with
regard to these claims he believed the Presi-
dent would sconduct this part of our affairs in
such a manner as 70 yield and recover in
IDENTITIES justly due without any compromise
of the national dignity and honor"
The prompt action Of the governments and its
firm attitude thus far on this subject will be COM
mended by the whole country. And we have no
doubt the Presidentvwill recover what is justly
due, and maintain the national dignity and
honor. No man is less likely to be put OF or
Influenced by diplomatic subterfuges or CHI
canery when great principle is involved.
He will bring his infexible honesty to bear
upon great international questions the same as
upon the every day transactions Of life.l And
If we are not mistaken Earl Russell will learn
in this dispute that neither naughty bearing
nor special pleading will intimidate or blind
him. If the President were to admit the as
sumption Of the British government that it was
justified in recognizing the rebels as bellige-
rents, and that il acted fairly as neutral, such
an admission would be contrary to the fact and
against the universal sentiment Of the country.
The conduct of England was in contravention
Of International law and comfy, and, as Mr..
Adams says, 1t twas such an act as was never
done by one nation toward another in . state
of amity.n Great Britain knew only the United
States as a governments; she did not know
The separate States, or any number Of them
combined, any more than we know, In our
olRcial intercourse with her, the provinces Of
Ireland or the counties Of England. If the
struggle had been q long one, the country ex-
hausted, and the contest hanging in the bal
ance, there might have been some appearance
Of reason for conceding belligorent rights; but
IL had scarcely commenced, and there was no
shadow of a separate nationality with tho
rebels when she hastily and fnseemly did this
unfriendly act Whatever we might have done
to amelorate the horrors of war by the ex-
change Of prisoners or otherwise, we never ac-
knowledged the rebels as anything else than
rebels, and we never can admit the justice Of
England, according to the established princi-
pies Of international law and comfy, In con-
ccding them bclligerent rights. The end has
proved that we were and are right and she was
wrong. How much better and moro becoming
great and friendly nation 1t would be In she
were TO confess her error and make all the
amends possible instead Of aggravsting It by
resisting our just claims.
And as to the neutrality of England, like
that Of conccding belligercnt rights, 1t was oil
on one side-in favor Of the rebels. The gov
eminent, the members OF the government rs in.
dividuals and a large portion Of the governing
class showed hostility both In their language
and acts. The building and fitting out Of
armed ships TO destroy our commerce, In the
face Of the world, when the most ordinary
vigilance would have prevented 1t, did not
evince neutrality, nor did the subscription to
the cotton loan by the prominent men Of the
country. No, the animus Of all this il too ap-