The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1865-12-16

Commercial Advertiser.
The Rising Foreign WAR
Cloud.

taEt4aNa @sA N@@~ - 'A~-- $500
oL eEcaeiingIv grave aspect. L. "II D. seen -
every Rejecting r-ai-T who perIse- MInlsteT
Adams admirable letter on the subject, publish
Cd elsewhere IN our columns to-day, that the TWO
countries are placed IN most leEIi2us 4l'ltule
towards each other. because each has fallen INTO
= position frJm which II can hCnJraIiy reced=
only with graf difficulty The United states
claimed inl=mniicati5n for damages ~ the hands
ct the AuyIJ-r-bel pirate iiq5Gm1- England
denied rue validity Of any such claim. NJ
Adams has exhausted diplomatic argument show
iGz that our demand is Just and rZLttul. Mean
while. Mr.. Seward. n q letter 10 our Minister az
London, declared hillselfsO confident u the legal
ana logical strength Of our position, that he
would not refuse q submit the whole question u
any just form Of Conventional arbitration OF refer
ence. Earl Russell. finding himself h0Ts du conn
tat 10 the argument, now changes his role OF ad-
yOcars and assumes that Of the bully lie def
antly ignores discussion, fatty refuses 70 c0ncede
our claim, and a~rrOElntly serves notice IN advance
that arbitration Of the disputed issue Is inadUi-s-
able. Under these circumstances, where i there
ground remaining on which 70 base an honorable
and peaceful adjustment?
Let us examine, and ascertain at this point,
precisely what it was that Earl Russell chose to
accept as q proposal u arbitTlte- On the 9th
October, ISG2-iw0 years aEo i viii y Observed
Mr.. Se=ari writing 10 3ir- Adams said
Though i~siaig;ng a confident belief IN the cor
Tectne-5 Of cur position IL regard - the claims Il
question, Ee shall O " ling 81 al times hereafter,
IS veil 3 LoS, 10 consider the Evidence an1 the ar
gunelts which her Iajssty's government may ofer
q show that thy are invalid, and Il We shall not be
cJnyiacei. there IS 10 fair and jus; form Of con=sn-
tiolal a~rbitr1ment or reference 10 which re shall
Lot BE wiling 20 submit them"
This wGs - proportion for arbitration IL
w.s not fC- Jnc American Secretary Of State, ia
that stage Of the discussion, y make any such
proposal fo- the regiment upon the Principl
involved vas still pr1yrs~siug ana incomplete.
Besides, IL vas England which vas rejecting our
claim She was declining t. recognize that it
raj aHv bass 81 justice; and IL was her place,
and not oars, u propose reference u some inde-
pendent tribunal. Dat Mr.. Seward. III generous
purpose u show Our anilble temper Is well as
our confidence IN our own ease, ami de!icateiy -
repel the idea that We had any disposition 10
bully IN the matter, threw out the hint that u
England Sh9lHd propose q settlement by arbitra-
ton, we would take no unfair advantage Of the
TACT, but would meet her IN proper spirit. Rus
sell never in any way noticed this suggestion
during two long years, and only recurs - it now,
apparently t. find pretext for curt and Insulting
rejection o. a proposal which he assumes 70 have
discovered III It's terms. He abruptly closes argu-
nent upon the merits Of the case by declaring
that her Najesty's Government must 'DECLINE
eitter 10 make reParatioH or comPa.sati.n for the
captures made by the alabama, or 10 rfer tie
question TO GHyJOreign STATE" This DIPLOMATIC
ally indecent conduct on the part of the British
Government Is sought to be defended in the fol-
lowing terms
II tDItAEs tO htE ElLJ--Ly : NJFEIDuicNl luAE
there are but two Questions by which the claim Of
compensation could be tested. The one is: Have the
British Government acted with due diligence, or, in
other words, with good faith and honesty, in the
maintenance % the neutrality they proclaimed The
other IL Have the law officers Of the Crown properly
understood the Foreign Enlistment Act. when they
decline, in June, 1850, to advise the detention AMI
seizure Of the -~7idbdmG, aud on other occasions when
they were asked to detain other ships building or tit
ting in British ports?
"It appears to Her Maiesty's Government that
neither o: these questions could be put 10 a foreign
Government with any regard to the dignity and
character OF the British Crown and the British na-
ton.
Her M.jesty's Government are the sole guardians
Of their own honor They cannot admit that they
may have acted with bad faith in maintaining the
neutrality they P~rofsssej. The law officers Of the
crown must be held 10 be better interpreters Of a
British statute than any foreign government can be
presumed 10 be"
II IS the refusal Of England with which we
have 70 deal, and not with the I~retexts upon
which that refusal i based. We might admit
that the British Government had been actuatei
throughout BY earnest desire - fulfil her neutral
obligations, and still Justly hold her responsible
for consequences fJwing from the in4dequacy
of her municipal law, which have resulted 10
our wrong. Earl Russell holds UP the British
enlistment act. insists that mis- Government tii
all that 1t could under that act, and therefore
claims that it did is whole duty. The weakness
Of the proposition lies in the fact that We have
nothing TO ID with the British municipal law.
The question Is simply this-haye We suffered in
consequence of a failure OF England 10 give US
the protection 10 which we were entitled at her
hands under a true Interpretation Of iHieynG-
n0raf law? That l. the point upon we differ.
Mr.. Adams is clear III one Interpretation of in
rernatiOnal obligation. Earl Russell as firmly
holds To another. WhO shIll decide between
them Il not the case one that could with
greatest p~rOpriety and 70 the honor and highest
advantage Of both parties Gf equally anxious o.
get 1T what : riZht) be referred - arbitration?
81, tlo, the law officers Of the British Crown
take one view and American i%urists take an
other The difference involves vital principles
What u!blnI! shall deteTmine the issue If
arbitration Is per=isrently rejected, there seems T.
be 10 alternative but the sword.
As the case stands, England mag even now
HonoTabiy repudiate Russell and recall his cart
refusal Dt friendly arbitration while on tue
other hand tie United States cannot withdraw
-neI- claI;Gs without iiehUnor At present the
British Government sands committed /, all
offensive declaration shat she will r~sPudiat6 our
claims - every h.zITj, regardless Of the law.
t. Withdraw them in Prs=snce u such an init
nation, would DC - admit either that We knew
cur demands were untenlbIe, or that, believing
them valid We dare net sustain them. Ii cannot
Dc that the people Of England will long permit
their Government y maintain an attitude which
leaves Us no escape from the alternatives oi war
~ dlshDuOr. They will SCI that our claims rest
upon principles Of international law without the
maintenance Of which there can be no such thing
As neutrality. No maritime power like England
can afford TO discard these principles when
brought 20 the extreme test; if Russell does not
discover this very soon. popular sentiment ut
home, we sincerely believe. Will speedily quicken
his mental vision. England has no honor u
lose in cOnceding our demands: and a week Of
preparation to fight for a rule destructive of her