New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1868-02-14
rHE SEWARD-srAXLEY DEAD-LocK

The candid tone of the discussion in England
upon the Alabama claims should provoke like
candor here. Lord Hobart bravely declares
that no citizen Substituting this republican
word for the monarclical term, Subject, ,
should fear to critcise or condemn the action
of his own Government upon the exploded pre-
tense that he is thereby aiding the cause "i its
antagonist, and preventing the success OF his
Government in its negotiations. The principle
lac thus lays down for Englishmen is even more
worthy to be followed by Americans.
The British Government during the war de-
clincd utterly to submit the Alabama claims
10 arbitration. Mr.. Seward very wisely waited
for them to change their minds. They now
offer to submit them, provided no question be
raised of the prOpricty of the Queens procla-
nation recognizing the Rebellion as n state
of war, and the Rebels and the United
States "a "bcllgerents,- between whom the
Queen and her subjects would claim the
rights of "neutrals.' Mr.. Seward refuses ar
bitraton unless this question also he sub
mittcd az one of the points of the case.
He does not ask that the arbitrator shall be
authorized to declare whether or no the royal
proclamation was justiiable. lie only demands
court by way of evidence, and shall have
such influence in determining the decision as,
after deliboration, they shall seem to merit
We think it would have been just and gener-
Gus for Lord Stanley TO admit this demand;
but, since he has made point of it, il may be
well to inquire whether we cannot afford to 90
TO arbitration without it, That the Rebels
ultimately acquired the status of bcllgercnts,
there is no question The only dispute Is as TO
the precise time when they gained the rights
and incurred the responsibilities of that con-
dition.
We do not see how the conclusion can bc
avoided that the first person TO recognize them
as beligcrents was the President of the United
States himself The proclamation of blockade
was issued q days before the Queens procla-
nation of neutrality. Mr.. Seward admits that
proclamation Of blockade is n belligerent act,
and can only be enforced against neutrals. 10
is for our interest therefore 10 assume that the
Rebels were belligerents ut the time when the
Southern ports were declared closed by Mr..
Lincoln. If they were not, then no war eX
istod at that date between the Confederacy
and the United States, and for every British
vessel seized in attempting to enter a
Southern port Lord Stanley has claim
against our Government. Some time before
the royal proclamation was published,
Mr.. Seward declared that the Rebellion
chad assumed the organization and at
titude of a separate political power" that il
had INSTITUTED civil war; that the Govern
mcnt had established "a maritime blockade"
On May A. 1861, Mr.. Seward informed Lord
Lyons the blockade would be conducted as
strictly according to the recognized rules of
"PUBLIC LAW, and with as much lberaity
toward NEUrRALs as any blockade ever was by
"a BELLIGEREST." Thus followed the Pres-
dent in recognizing the Rebels as a beligercnt,
and styling England a neutral. nine days before
the Queens proclamation was issued
Our Secretary of State then used this Ian
guage because he desired England TO respect
the blockade, as q neutral. The words used
were true and honest, were used for our
benefit, and accrued to our advantage. The first
step for Great Britain 10 take, as the legal
mode of warning British subjects 10 respect the
blockade, or violate it at their own poril, was
to issue a proclamation recognizing the contest
as war. and the parties thereto as bellgerent,
and proclaming herself neutral. Moreover, as
soon as the first seizures Of vessels were made
under the blockade, the same question came
before the United States Courts, and, on APP
peal, the Supreme Court declared that the
Irscla1nation VI blockade recognized state VI