New-York daily tribune., 1866-01-13

fered from the conduct OF England towaIu 1no
United States.
|. "Thc United States did not recognize the
insurgents in South America as belligerent
until the fact of the presence of their armed
vessels was made patent to them on the ocean,
But Great Britain did erect the insurgents in
the United States into bclligerent before they
showed vessel Oh the sea, before they organ
lied an army on land, and before they had done
a thing but declare an intention to do what they
never subsequently executed.
9. Upon the first notice given to the Gov
eminent of the United States that the neutral
ity of their ports was violated by South Ameri'
can insurgents making outfits in connection
with their own citizens, they Immediately put
in force the provisions of the existing law;
prosecutions were instituted against the foreign
agents, as well as citizens, and DEGREES Of restl-
tuition were obtanedfrom the Judicial tribunals IN
the cases of captured property. In other words,
nothing was left undone that energy could DO
to bring to bear existing preventive legislation
against these offenders" Great Britain, on the
contrary left all the rcmonStrances OF Mr..
Adams against the establishment of Rebel
naval bureau at Liverpool unheeded.
3. In both cases the existing law proved IN
efficient to prevent or punish illegal outfits.
Portugal appealed to the Government oi the
United States and solicited a new movement tor
the purpose of obtaining from the requisite
source stronger powers of prevention, and the
Government of the United Safes at once recog-
nized the Justice of the complaint and adopted
the suggestion. "If her Majestys Govern
ment." says Mr.. Adams, has at any time fol-
lowed this example, it has escaped my obServa'
ton" To one Of Mr.. Adamss representations
Earl Russell made the memorable reply: "Sure'
ly we are not bound to 90 on making new laws
ad infnitum because new occasions arise"
Lord Clarendon. on Dec. 2, closes the cor
respondence by stating that he would be pre-
pared to controvert many statements III MIR.
Adamss letter. but that in the opinion oil
the English Government no advantage could re-
suit from prolonging the controversy.
Previously (Nov. 2l), Mr.. Adams had notified
Lord Clarendon that the Government OF the
United States declined the English proposition
for the appointment Of joint commission.
In comparing the comment OF those Englsh
papers which during the war were ayowed
sympathizcrs with the Rebellion, upon this
correspondence. We are struck with the general
absence Of any defiant language. They express
qualification that before the publication OF the
correspondence England had already been
assured by President Johnson that the United
States did not intend to push the controversy to
extremties. The very able discussion Of the
question concerning the cmutual rights sofneutrals
and belligerents BY the diplomatic representa-
tves Of England and the United States, and the
comments upon it by the press of both countries,
have, it seems impressed the minds OF most
Englishmen with this important conviction;
That. in case England should be involved in a
war, the application by the United States Of the
principles laid down by her statesmen would
be fraught with appalling consequences. And
this conviction, which is clearly transparent IN
the present attitude of the statesmen and lead
ing journalists of Great Britain, is the best
evidence that the conduct of England toward
America during the late war was extremely
unfair.