New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1866-01-27
eUn CONTROVERSY WITH GREAT
~ 90 BRGTABN.

Ous OF tne issue presented IN the puDnsheo coi
Tespondenee Of Earl Russell and Mr.. Adams on
the subject Of the claim of the United States
and American citizens against Great Britain
ewing to the hostilities from cruisers fitted out
10 England, and the neglect of the British Gov
eminent of their neutral obligations to the
United States during our late civil war.
The attitude of Great Britain in this CORE
spondence as in al preceding 1t on the same
subject, as shown in the letters of Earl Russell,
Is very remarkable, and without parallel in
the international history Of governments, Euro
pean or American. RebelHons instructions,
and civil wars have existed compromising as
large territory, and, in the case Of Spanish
America, as large a population, as exists
in our Rebel States, and in this we in
clnde the revolution Of the Thirteen Colonies.
Now, not in one of these cases did any
neutral government undertake TO recognize the
beligerency of the Rebels until after long
lapse of time and much deliberatiOn, interven-
ton and diplomatic correspondence Disregard
ing ell these precedents of history and parlia-
mentary law, the British Government in the
case Of the Rebellion of the Southern States,
Jumped instantly into q recognition Of the pre-
tended belligerency, it did this, as Earl Rus
sell now admits, not on q knowledge Of the fact,
but on the alleged estimate Of what might or
might not turn out to be fact; it rushed into
the recognition on the very day when it knew
that Mr. Adams was about to present himself
rs the Envoy Of the United States; nd,proceed-
ing with precipitancy without parallel, chose
from the very beginning to place itself on dan
gerous and false pretenses.
The immediate consequence Of the act Of the
British Government was to communicate to the
Rebel Southern States the semblance of right
ships it was physically incapable of doing on
its own behalf, and therefore legally incapaci-
tated to do, according to all true Interpretation
of the law of nations.
HaEng no ships of war of their own, the
Confederates very naturally went to England
who had thus advanced more than half way to-
ward them-to obtain ships, ornaments and
men, with which to prey on the commerce of.
the United States.
All these ships were fitted out in England, in
violation Of the manifest neutral duties of Great
Britain. OF course, the United States remon.
strsted. What was Lord Russell's answer
The letter of IN Act of Parliament He said,
We have an Act of Parliament which forbids
belligerent equipment in our ports. But we
cannot bring these peculiar equipments within
the letter of that Act. That is not true, said
the United States. If you exerted due dill
gence, or had proper disposition to execute
those acts, they give you power enough. And,
beside, if those acts do not Suffice pass Others
which shall suffice.
But the British Government were either afraid
or unwilling 10 bring the matter before Parlia-
ment. SO the hostile equipments went on; and
ships fitted out in England ravaged our com.
MERGE until our merchant marine was cut TO
pieces and driven from the ocean, and the car
rying-trade of the world thrown exclusively
into the hands Of the ship-owners Of Great
Britain. For all this, We demand reparation.
Lord Russell argues the Question-that is. the
question of the obligation Of England for dam.
ages done by the Alabama, Tallahassee and
Shenandoah. At the conclusion Of that argu-
ment, he says, We decline to pay damages; we
decline to defer to friendly power as arbiter
But we are willing to submit claims on both
sides to joint international commission.
To this Mr.. Adams replies, arguing all the
questions at issue with admirable dignity and
superior ability, and concluding with declining
the proposal; but saying he would refer the pro-
posal Of Lord Russell to his Government. Thus
far, there would not seem any insolublc contro-
versy between the two Governments. But now
comes its singular deuouement.
/. Earl Russell publishes the correspondence
in q newspaper in London, which correspond
ence looks fair enough and for an amicable
solution of the question, because it appears to
profFcr practical method of solution.
g. But, two or three days afterward, Lord Rus.
sell caused to be published in The London Times
a semi.oficial statement that, although he had
made the proffer of a commission at the close Of
q discussion of the depredations Of the Alabama
and shenandOah-and so TO all logical relations
and TO all common understandings those depre-
datious were to be included as matters that the
commission should have charge of-that sub
ject was the very one that the British Govern.
ment did not intend should be referred to the
c0mmissionl
The effect Of this Is that Great Britain refuses
not only all compensation on account of the
Alabama and other Confederate cruisers fitted
out in England, but repels any and all methods
IF adjudicating the past internationally.
VUbathar thu ;nforrnal cod;c;l IN tho mr.