Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1867-09-25

I, eia'm', for the adjudication Of an arbitrs
/ lor Throughout his lengthy and ami
'Iated correspondence with Lords Rus
sell and Clarendon, the Washington
Minister has chiefly directed attention L
the question ofindemnity and the pro
y posal that that, and that alone, should b,
IT referred to arbitration, came from him
h self The more resolutely our then For
/, eign Ministers repudiated such mode
- of settlement the more persistently tn,
: Washington Cabinet pressed it forward
s and IL is not until we find Lord Stanley
! frankly accepting the principle of arbi-
tration that Mr. Seward begins, to start
fresh difficulties and to exact new condi
! tons. 1t would almost seem as If the
' American Minister had been somewhat
: disagreeably surprised at finding his
own proposition so favorably received,
and that he had discovered that
, political interests would render il
desirable TO put impediments in
the way of the settlement he had keen
so urgently enforcing upon us, One can
understand referring claim for indem-
nifty to an arbitrator; but who ever heard
OF committing questions Of national pol.
icy to such a trihunal2 Arbitration is
not possible upon such point as that
newly started by Mr.. Seward. 1t is quite
within the province of his government to
assume that our recognition was "unne-
cessary and premature" and that it was
IAN injurious proceeding for which Great
Britain would Immediately come under
a full responsibility to justify it, or to
render redress or indemnify" This is
either a serious menace or mere often.
sive vaporng, but in any case the coun.
try will uphold the government in the
attitude it has assumed upon this point.
England is answerable to America if the
statesmen of the latter country choose to
make her so; but in the meantime she
will not brook the interference of an out.
slider in the quarrel which those who are
unfamiliar with the temper of Washing.
ton diplomacy would imagine that Mr..
Seward seriously desires to force upon
her.
But what, after all, is the basis of the
American governments compliant on
the score of this recognition of the
belligerent rights of the South 1t is
that it was unnecessary and prema-
ture." What in some places Mr.. Seward
has termed "a civil war" is now mini
missed for the purposes of his new argu-
ment into "a domestic disturbance,
which, although it had severe peculiar
tiles, yet was, in fact, only such a sedi
tious instruction as is incidental to
national progress in every State" 1t
was British Intervention, as expressed in
the recognition of the belligerent rights
of the South, which raised that trfing
domestic disturbance" into social
war. 1t lent to it, Mr.. Seward contends,
countenance, aid, and support. 1t gave
it the status of political power. The
government of the United States could |
have dealt with this domestic disturb
ance" easily enough but for England,
which gave to it the prestige of IAN
armed, unlawful insurrection, on an
equality with the United States" This,
says Mr. Seward, was the effect of the
action of the British government at a
time "while as yet the civil war was
undeyeloped while the insurgents
were without any organized mill.
tary force or treasury, and
long before they pretended to have
a flag, or to put either an armed ship, or
even a merchant vessel upon the sea"
l. ut Itply W dit lulS 10 OLflOuS tHOuRut
for Mr.. Seward begs the whole question
when he starts with the allegation that
the Queens proclamation was "unne-
eessary and premature Her Majesty's
government hold the exact contrary,
and it is not within the province of any
foreign powerto call into question the
mode In which they have exercised what
Mr.. Seward admits to be their undoubted
prerogative, of deciding the exact period
in which the attitude of this country to-
wards two contending sections shall be
defined upon the basis of international
law. That which we did we did in the
exercise of our right; whether our action
was unnecessary or premature" is a
matter in which we are by no means
bound to accept the dictation of the
Washington Cabinet, although backed by
the threat that we may be called upon
"to Justify it or render redress or in
demnity." OF course Mr.. Seward does
not seriously mean 1.-THE of what he
says but what pity it ia that he should
say it
Waving this point, however, Lord
Stanley has very substantial reply !
even upon the merits of.the case. How
can it be truihfully alleged that the |
Queens proclamation acknowledging
the belligerent right Of the South was
unnecessary or premature when it
followed, instead of preceding, an act OF
the President of the United States which !
had exactly the effect of the pfoolama-
ton. However Mr. Stewards views of |
the Southern rising may vary, whether
it was civil war or merely " domestic |
disturbance" it is certain that before the
intelligence of the action of the British |
Government could reach America the |
President had called out more than
100000 troops, that active measures had |
to be taken for the defense of the capt.
tai, sangdinary collisions had already |
taken place, and, more than all las Lord
Stanley points out with remarkable |
force), 1" the blockade Of the Southern
ports had actually commenced, and the
right of search and capture had already |
been exercised over British vessels" On |
the other hand, the claim Of the Confede-
rate States TO have their belligerent rights
recognized had already been asserted by
the arrival in British waters Of two reg
ularly commissioned ships of war, the
Sumter and the Nashville of glorious re-
nown. What was the only possible con-
struction to be placed upon a condition
Of things like this2 1t is supplied ready
to our hands by the decision of the
American law courts in the case Of the
Tropical Wind, in 1861, which sets forth
that the assertion of the right Of blockade
By America amounted to declaration
that civil war existed, aud, moreover,
blockade itself is belligerent right