, 1866-11-15
THE ALABAMA CLAIMS,
Important Article Prom the London
Times.

Article Prom the London
Times.
From the Loudon Times, octobe. 30.l
We have more than once during the
present autumn reminded our readers Of the
outstanding Alabama claims. II these claims
were, as some people think, destitute Of all
legal or reasonable foundation-stil1 more, II
they were preferred out of mere desire to
pick quarrel With US, 1t wonld be needless
TO waste words upon them. No one, how
ineeTs nay be bis horror Of sa9
ought to be allowed, for the sake Of peace,
by q Christian nation, or that such q con-
ccssion would have any other effect than to
invite further aggression. The present qucs-
tion, however, wears very different aspect.
taken on this side Of the Atlantic, IN almost
universal opinion prevails on the other that
the United States have suffered grieyous
wrong at our hands, and that we have de.
MED, through our Government, legitimate
claim for reparation- This in itself consti
necessary, for reconsideration. a nation,
like an individual, is not an impartial Judge
in its own cause, but this remark applies TO
ourselves as we'll as to the other party, and
justice compels us to observe that in offering
TO submit the matter to arbitration the
fdence in the justice Of their position. Few
lawyers. indeed, looking at the circum
stances from purely legal point Of view,
will deny that great deal may be said for
the arguments embodied in tie dispatches
Of ofusta;aaa Mr.: Adams s,.sa and Mr. Seward. a
menfs may be found in the NORTH
4tatrican Reriep for the present
! month, and If they fill short Of esta-
hlishing the liability Of Great Britain for
damages inflicted by the Alabama and her
consorts, they go far to show. what has often
been admitted in nur own ro1unns thar ah -
represents casts oHtissus In international
Law. it Is manifcstly contrary to the law Of
nations that vessel should be equipped and
commissioned by or On behalf Of a be1liger-
and prey upon the commerce of the other
belllcerent. It Is manifest]y permitted By
the Law Of nations for neutral shlpbuflder
| to construct vessel Of war, and sell 1t to a
belligerent Government, provided the ressel
I. not equipped or commissioned within neu-
tral territory, does rot issue from neutral
port IN Warlike character, and does not ac-
Quifc that character TIL she has visited port
Of her oWn country. The peculiarly OF the
Alabama case was that at no time and In no
respect was she a mere article of
meIchandi;e, but Was destined by
ordered and purchase ed her, for the purpose
which she ultimately fulfilled. The con-
struction Of her hull, the enlistment Of her
crew. the preparation and embarkation Of
| her armament-au were part Of the same
transaction, conducted oy the same agents,
and she never in her whole career, entered q
Confederate port. "She went nowhere for
SALE" and but ior fragrant breach Of our
neutrality could have had no existence as a
Confederate cruiser st MI. Upon these facts
the Americans claim an indemnity from Us,
alleging that State Is responsible for
wrongful acts of Its subjects, which either
more effective laws or a more vigorous exc
cution Of its present laws might hare pre-
vented. Lord Russell, denied, In substance,
that anything beyond an honest applica-
tion Of our own municipal statutes
can be required Of us by a foreign
Power, and declined 10 entertain the qnes~
tion whether, In fact, our Foreign Enlist
meut Act had been applied in good faith
But no one had raised this question, while
another question-whethero our Government
had acted with sufficient promptttude-was
excluded by his general doctrine. Herc is
the weak point Of our advocates reasoning.
and 1t is night that we should acknowledge
IT frankly. The principle that International
obligations are limited by the provisions of
municipal Legislation, though apparently
sanctioned BY the high authority Of the late
dispute, and II this principle be surrender.