New-York daily tribune., 1866-01-15


TO fasen upon us was constructive and posed OF
many elements We had recognized the Cohfederates
as belgerents too soon; We had opened our eyes 70
the illegal practices Of their agents late we had
exercised discretion in their favor when 1t was free
to to concede or refuse to them some privilege;
had not prosecuted every that we might under
the Foreign Enlistment act and we nad tat deSped act
Such were tho circumstances by which Mr.. Adams
strove TO supply the want Of evidence to establish an IN
uy such as is cognizable in the form Of international
law ard TO impart hostile animus to conduct other
wise innocent. Let be less Just to him than 10
ourselves and admit that Lord Russes answers to his
representations were not always couched in the most
fecitons terms and might possibly have given onense
to nation less sensitive than that which he repre-.
sened Still the fact remains which s stated in Lord
Clarendons last dispatch. dated December that no
armed vessel departed during the war from British
port 70 cruise against the commerce OF the United
Sates;" and that after the untoward escape OF the
Alabama no evasion Of our law took place which could
by any constitutional means have been prevented.
We need hardly remind onr readers how emphatcaly
this remark applies TO the Of the Shenandoah when
is the immediate subject Of this series OF dispatches
In the first Of them dated October 81 Mr.. Adams. with
great skill couples suggestion-for it is no more-of
neglect in respect Of the king with direct impu
taion OF paralty in respect Of the rescued crew OF
the Alabama. Here. again the faacy is the common
one of mistaking two unreal grievances for one real
one We could not. both Lord Russell and Lord
Clarendon point out proceed against the persons landed
by the Deerhound, or deliver them over TO the
United States. for the sufficient reason that they
were accused Of legal oifensc was their extra
dion demanded. Snch being the fact. we had no
power to restrain them from going out in the Lau
rel 10 ion the SEA King than we had TO restrain any
one else however vexatons their doing 80 might be.
aud must have been, 10 the American GoYefnnent.
Can We, then, be justly censured for allowing the sea
King 10 put 10 seat Certainly not; for even Mr.
Adainss vigilance failed TO detect anything suspicious
about her before she sailed; and ber conversion into
vessel Of took place wholly and entirely beyond
our Jurisdiction after transfer 10 new owners Thus
both complaints fail TO the ground. and nothing re-
mains but 10 mpugn the subsequent recognition OF the
Shenandoah Confederate ship OF war. Now. we
need not scrupe 10 express wish that II were possible
10 deprive vessels fitted out and commissioned at sea
of those rights and privileges which belong to the pnb
lie ships Of a beligerent power. But bow. upon any
known principle Of law Colonial Governor. or a cap
tain Of the British navy. could be authorized
TO ignore q regular commission because he may have
reason 10 believe that u covers an irregular equip
en' or how any court In this country could pass neg
ment upon the vessel without hearing all the parties
concerned has yet 10 be determined by iurists. We
are not aware that any civilized nation has ever com
nited itself such course, and, II not, why should
Mr. Adams expect to adopt III Yet, unless be would
have had adopt H. what force Is there In the indg
nant allegation that, after the escape had been con-
summated. Her Majesty's Government. nevertheless
in,tead OF taking prompt measures 20 denouncc the
transaction thus completed In defiance OF It's authority
and refu.ng rive the smallest councnance in any
British port deliberately proceeded 10 accept the result
as Legitimate" &c Mr. Adams protests against "i this
most unfortunate construction OF international law by
which success In committing the fraud was made the
only test 10 purge OF It's offensive nature. He might
NJ wei. protest against those perverse and mschieyous
rules " muuicipa law which enable evil disposed per
sons escape punishment by taking care to commit no
legal crime. Nor can we regard his later demand for
the detenti of the shenandoas crew. after her
rival Liverpool at all more reasonable Had II been.
he states quite certain that severalof them were
British subjects " would doubtless have bern proper 10
prosecute them under the Foreign Enli-snlent act.
The senior naval officer ut Liverpool. however. was
fllly satisfied" on inquiry. that they were all for
eigner- aud as II was open TO Mr. Adams. any
else proceed against them we may presume That he
Was satisled too. They might all indeed. have been
arrested charge Of piracy but there was power
10 dean them until witnesses shon be procured from
the shores OF the Pacific there rimd Jdcie
evidence Ia sustain such charge.
The particular case Of the Shenandoah IL really no
unfair specimen OF the general case presented by Mr.
Adams IL Is. upoa the whole, neither stronger nor
weaker than The average ',Ie1sh q The topics upon
Div TO II differs little from. that often repeated
by Lord Russell We admit and depore the
damnum we dsclaim the injuria, and assert
that under ike conditions. the United States have
always done the same The reply, of course, intro.
duccs an historical argument, OF which the result
appears TO be that the United States have invaria-
bly declined to pay compensation for losses which
their laws for tho time being did not enable them to
prevent but that on one occasion at least. they
sened "a make their laws more stringent. Perhaps II
would have been more polite and codrteons Lord
Russels part had he earlier intimated readiness 10
entertain the amendment OF cur own Foreign Enlist
ment act but in saying this we must ayow very
the United States would have had practical effect.
The success of the Confederate agents can.
rot be fairly attributed 70 the want OF
those clauses which Mr.. Adams considers
10 important; Il was due to the inherent
difficulty Of distinguishing their operations from those
of legitimate commerce. Does Mr.. Adams conceive
that II the sale OF aud munitions of war TO bel
gcrent had Been prohibited by act OF Parliament, il
would have been possible TO stop their erportation TO
the United States. or. to come nearer home that his
Government could have stopped the proceedings OF
Captain Bullock on their own terfitoryf We really do
moi believe he would affirm much and We observe
with regret that he speaks doubtfuy TO their fl.
ture inclination TO enforce their own Foreign Enlist
ment act with the loyalty before. IL Is hardly
possueor imag that the people OF the L. states
after tho experience they have had OF injuries from
the upe fec,iOn Of British legislation and the refusal
To extend IT, would be resdy chcerfully TO respond to
another appeal like that made IN 1855 by Her Majcstys
representative to the more stringent and pro
tsct!on extended to by their own This Is one OF
the passages which could wish 10 eXpunged from
Ills correspondence together with one or two curt
sen cnces which Mr. Adams cus from the letters Of Lord
Russell We still look forward 10 time when this source
OF iie renee shall have blown over and joint commits
perh ,ps not limited 10 ngland aud America shall be
npnn cd io recast the whole chapter OF international
law which treats Of neutral rights and duties For the
present we do not blame President Johnsons Gov
crnment for declining Lord Iaissells proposal Per
hans the Americans have been too lately begcrents,
and we too lately neutrals. 10 enter into conference
lust now without passion or prejudice. Tho friendly
reaos of the two nations have indeed been severely
sted during the last four years but they have borne
the test; and though Mr.. Adams has written some
hard things Of in the Of this correspondence
feel assured that he has never fled and never VIII
f to appreciate TO recIprocatc the sincerity OF our
pacific sentiments.