The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-12-17

following despatch from LORD STANLEY In an
swer to another from Mr.. Seward, concerning
the Alabama claims:-
"LoRD STANLEY TO MR. FORD.
"FoREIGN OFFICE, Nov. l8, lS67.-Slr:-In my
despatch TO Sir. Il. Bruce of the 10th of Sepi em-
Der confined myself to mere settlement OF
which MIR. Adams had communicated TO me in
reply to my despatch OF the 24tn OF May re-
specting the claims arising on either Side out
OF the events Of the late civil war In the United
States, .,-,-,.,
date of my despatch fully considered the terms
OF Mr.. Seward's despatch, 1 VIII no longer delay
acquainting you, for communication to that
Minister, with the impressioni 1t has made upon
them. .,.. .,., A.
President of the United States considers the
terms used in my despatch with reference to
prehensive aud sufficiently precise to include
all the claims of American citizens for deprada-
tionB upon their commerce during the late Re-
bellion, which have been the subject of COM
plaint upon the part of the Government of the
United States those terms being TO quote the
precise words of my despatch of the 2ith of May,
applicable to this class of claims, and which, in
substance, repeats those rsot by me in my
despatch of the 9th of March, that the question
on which Great Britain was ready to go to arbI-
tration was, whether, in the matters connected
claims of American citizens have arisen, the
course pursued by the British Government,
and by those who acted upon its authority was
such as would involve a moral responsibility
on the part of the British Government to make
good, either in whole or in part, the losses of
I'm the same and in the previous dispatches
1t will be found that, while agreeing to this
limited reference as regards the So called Ala
bama claims. have epeatedly stated that her
Majesty's Government could not consent to
refer TO q foreign power to determine whether
the policy OF her Majesty's Government in re.
cognizing the Confederate states as belligerents
was or was not suitable TO the circumstances of
the time when the negotiation took place. After
referring, however, to the terms of my despatch
Of the Ath OF May Mr., seward W. goes on on to say
Government that Government would deem
itsolf at liberty to insist before the arbiter that
the actual proceedings and relations of the Bril-
tish Government, its officers, agents, and sub
jec towards the United States in regard to the
Rebellion and the Rebels as they occurred dur
ing that Rebellion, are among the matters
which are connected with the vessels whose
depred dations are complained of just as in the
case OF the general claims alluded to by me, the
actual proceedings and relations of her Ma
SSnbieets, in regard 10 The Uniied States ''Iu in
regard 10 the Rebellion and the Rebels, are
of which those general claims arise.
"rne language thus used by Mr.. Seward ap-
pears to her Majestys government to be open
To the construction that 1t is the desire of the
United States Government that any tribunal
TO be agree ed upon in dealing with the So called
Alabama claims or with The general claims
might enter into the question, whether the act
of policy of her Majesty's Government in recO9-
power was or was not suitable to the circum-
stances OF the time when The recognition was
made-a construction which, AFTER the dis
tinct and repeated avowal of her Maj jesty's Gov
eInment, can hardly suppose InaI IL was IN IN
tended
despatch should bear.
"But TO prevent any Misrepresentation on this
subject her MaJesty's Government think it
BocaIled Alabama claims brought forward by
the citizens of the United States. and as re-
CARDS the general claims, that tney cannot de-
part, directly or indirectly from their refusal to
srefer TO a foreign power to determine whether
the policy OF recognizing the Confederate
States as q bellgerent power was or was not
suitable To the circumstances OF the time when
the negotiation was made
g
the only point which her Majesty's Govern
ment can consent to refer to the decision of an
arbiter is the question of moral responsibility
of her Msjesty's Government, on the assump.
tiOn that AN actual state OF war existed between
Confederate States and on that assumption 1t
would be for the arbiter to determine whether
there had been any such failure on the part of
the British Government as a neutral In the OBJ
servance, legally or morally, or any duties or
relations towards the GoVernmen ofthe United
States as could be deemed to involve a moral
responsibility on the part OF the British Gov
ernmenL to make good losses OF American citi-
zens caused by the Alabama and other vessels
OF the same class.
OF moral responsibility on the part of her Ma
jesty's Government does not and cannot come
"Mr. Seward rightly supposes that her Ma
jesty's Government contemplates two tribunals
for the adjudication, one of the Alabama
one being, in the first instance, at all events
the tribunal of an arbiter, who would be called
upon to pronounce on the principles of the
moral responsibility of the British Government
and on the nature of whose decision would
depend the question of the appointment of q
mixed commission for the examination In
detail OF the several claims of citizens of the
United States to which that decision applied
namely, those arising out OF the depredationS
of the Alabama ana other similar vessels. and
the adjudication OF the sums payable In each
ease: the other, in its com IN encement and u
its close, q purely mixed commission for the
examination OF The general claims OF the sub
jects and citizens of both countries arising out
of the war, and the adjudication of the sums
payable by either country in each case
"The distinction between the two classes oi
claims is clear, The one may never come before
mixed commission, and therefore NAV not
require the assisl ence of an arbiter to decide
differences Of detail arising between the com.
missioners = the other, though originally
brought before a mixed commission may poS-
aibly require the intervention OF an arbiter in
case of q difference of opinion among the mem
beTs of the commission which could not bC
otherwise reconciied, and for which case pro
vision would be made in the ordinary way IN
the convention for the settlement of the mixeC
claims by the insertion of articles In regard u
the selection of an arbiler,
"The functions of such an arbiter, as well al
an arbiter for a like purpose In the other mixeC
commission, for which prov ision would hav
TO be made 10 meet hthe contingency of the so
under the cognizance of mixed com mission
would have nothing in common with the func
tIons of the aTbiter to whom the question o
principle involved In the last mentioned clas
"Her Majesty's Government cannot bat an
prehend that, II Mr. Seward really requires nm
restricted arbitration as app ieable 10 botl
Glasses of claims. and that the tribunals In bot
classes of cases should proceed upon the sam
principles, and be clothed win the sam
bowers, he has not fully considered the wild
and Inevitable distinction which exists bt
tween the GLASSES; and, In directing you to suit
mit to the cor psideratiOn OF Mr.. Seward the ex
plantations and observations contained la tbi
despatch, have TO Instruct you 20 express th