Delaware State journal and statesman., 1866-02-02
IFrom the New York Tribune.1
OUR CONTROVERSY WITH GREAT
BRITAIN.

ing out oil tne issue presented III tHe pun
lished correspondence of Earl Russell and
Mr.. Adams on the subject Of the claim OF
the United States and American citizens
against Great Britain, owing to the hostili
ties from cruisers fitted out in England, and
the neglect of the British Government of
their neutral obligations to the United States
during our late civil war.
The attitude of Great Britain in this cor
rcspondence, as in all preceding it on the
same subject, as shown in the letters of Earl
Russell, is very remarkable, and without
parallel in the international history of gov
ernments, European or American. Rebel
lions, instructions, and civil wars have
existed, comprehending as large territory,
and, in the case of Spanish America, as
large a population as exists in our rebel
States, and in this we include the revolution
of the Thirteen Colonies. Now, not in one
of these cases did any neutral government
undertake to recognize the belligerency of
the Rebels until after a long lapse of time
and much deliberation, Intervention and
diplomatic correspondence. Disregarding
ull lllGbC pltlIhNhio VI hAotoiy oh0 PNtAtN
mentary law, the British Government, in
the case of the rebellion of the Southern
States, jumped instantly into recognition
of tie pretended belligerency; it did this, as
Earl Russell now admits, not on knowledge
of the fact nut on the alleged estimate of
what might or M ight not turn out to be fact
II rushed into the recognition on the very
day when il knew th.et Mr.. Adams was
about to present himself as the Envoy oil the
United States; and, proceeding with pre-
clpitancy without parallel, choose from the
very beginning to place itself on dangerous
and false pretences.
The immediate consequence Of the act 9i
the British Government was to communicate
to the Rebel Southern States the semblance
of right to carry on war at sea; which,
possessing no ships, it was physically inca
pable of doing on its own behalf, and there
fore legally incapacitated to do, according to
all true Interpretation OF the law of nations.
Having no ships of war of their own, the
Confederates very naturally went to Eng
land-who bad thus advanced more than
half way toward them-to obtain ships, ar
maments 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
demonstrated. What was Lord Russell's
answer? The letter of an 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 diligence, or had a proper
disposition to execute those acts, they give
you power enough. And, besides, if those
acts do not suffice, pass others which shall
suffice.
But the British Government were either
afraid or unwilling to bring the matter before
Parliament. So the hostile equipments went
on; and ships fitted out in England ravaged
our commerce until our merchant marine
was cut to pieces and driven from the ocean
and the carrying-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 ques-
tion-that is, the question of the obligation
Of England for damages done by the Ala
hama, Tallahassee and Shenandoah. At the
conclusion of that argument, he says, We
decline to pay damages; we decline to defer
10 friendly power as arbiter. But we are
willing to submit claims on both sides to a
joint international commission.
To this Mr.. Adams replies, arguing all the
questions at issue with admirable dignity
md superior ability, and concluding with
declining the proposal; but saying he would
refer the proposal of Lord Russell to hts
Government. Thus far, there would not
seem any insoluble controversy between the
two Governments. But now comes its sin
gular denouement
1.-Earl Russell publishes the correspon-
dence in a newspaper in London, which
correspondence looks fair enough and for an
smicable solution of the question, because
1t appears to profTer a practical method Of
solution.
2.-But, two or three days afterward, Lord
Russell caused to be published in the London
Times a semi official statement that, although
he had made the proffer of II commission al
the close of discussion of the depredations
of the Alabama and Shenandoah-and SO to
all Illogical relations and to all common under
standings those depredations were to be
included as matters that the commission
should have charge ot-that subject was th'
very one that the British Government die
not intend should be referred to the com
missionl
The effect of this is that Great Britain
refuses not only all compensation on accoun
of the Alabama and other Confederate
cruisers fitted out in England, but repel
any and all methods of adjudicating the pas
internationally.
Whether the informal co1icil to the col
respondence implies blunder on the part c
Earl Russell, in the tenor of his dispatch, W
do not pretend to determine. However tina
may be, the sum of the British position
this: We the English government insist tha
the measure of neutral duties shall be a
Act of Parliament of our own making; thG
is TO say, our own Independent, absolut
will, regardless of international law. W
claim the right TO execute that Act of Pa
lament with as much or as little vigilanc
as we SOC tit-which makes the measure {
public duty the mere will, honest or dishol
est, Of the authorities of Great Britain.
Tho United States protests against ii
arrogant assumption, on the part of Grei
Britain, of substituting her will and her mil
asterial policy in tho place of the law