New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1868-03-13
NEw-YORK, FRIDAY, MARCH 10, 1865.

was no war raging at sea. They said 10 was not your
business TO act upon assumption OF what might
claiming your neutrality in a var which
might have begun. He thought that was unsound
opinion bur it one held by man in America Of very
Mr. Adams had protested against the recognition ana
though Mr.. Seward had consequently referred to me
matter the first official dispatch on the subject from the
American Government was in writing in April, 1863 In
that dispatch stated that the dispute between the
countries had had its origin in this country naN!hs
acknowledged the COnfederates as belhgerants on we
sea before they had single vessel OF Their OWL ~
thought there was good reason for believing uat te
American Government were mistaken IN the p9suon
they took. He not ashamed TO confess that during
his views oR ne T tRe slavery Ts!y' question
ga OF May lsGl be put question e 70 tne
Sir G, c. Lewis stated that the proclamation would he
aon certainly a. 9 smls S and other nG Of the
North not unfrendy act on me part OF our Enecu
tive toward the Government OF te united staes esr
hear Therefore he could not agree In the opinion Whch
Mr.. Seward had formed or that proceeding. But me
point was which warmly interested the North BE,
fore the publication OF the Queens ne had
feared that letters OF marque about to DO issued IN
this country by Mr. Davis acting Tor the CoedcIates
and he had been anxious 10 ascertain the light IN which
British vessels sailing under such letters would PC re-
garded lie mad crews or sueh YES
seswoud be looked upon pirates and he
no doubt that would have been the 80 years ago
lie thought the noble Lord, tho Secretary Of
ls@J Mr. Seward lad the United states Govern ZEN
must altogether waive their conviction, that the proc
amaon was not justified He distinctly understood Mr..
ton on the Alabama claims the noble Lord the Secretary
of Foreign Affairs, required OF him TO waive his eonNc'
ton that proclamation premature and contrary TO
ntcrnatiOuaIJaY In effect the noble Lord said to NJ.
Seward Will not refer the other matters TO albIanOn
hut vo acknowledge yourself wrong the grounds that
YOU have constantly taken TO the proclamation having
been premature and contrary to international law.
LORD STANLEY-I did not require that, only SAID |
objected TO have that question before TIC arbitrator
Mr. W. j, FonsTfh would inief'from the noble Lords
a.,
eved that Mr. Seward had arrived az the same c0nclu-
sion. Again TO not referring the question TO atDra
point itself he could not why We should object TO
make that before an arbitration. There might De an
TO be mode OF making confession where We knew we
wrong but he believed that the parties % the treaty
lrded as a means Of deciding disputes between two M
lions 10y the Intervention Of third party without var q
S eSi T' be resSrded Sdd therefore, he could
not see that the fact OF our thln5knS oulsoif f5
aTbitrotion ms between ourselves aud another
nation also interested in the mattel Gqt i s az the re, O p
mueb lie thought Mr. Stewards Last dispatch admitted
of different Interpretation from That which might hatu
GnTe R6re should be Arbitration on the question OF the
proclamation as well rs that of the claims against inc
incnts ON the subject % recognition mnst have bad their
effect Mr.. seward. In his last dispatch be ethsI
changed his ground defined 10 80 a. TO admit OF d,
ereu Interpretation being given to his demand from thaE
which the wording Of his first dispatch seeped 70 require
=
opnon ON the recognition bearing on the cas-, ~ the
vessels. His impression Was that II the noble !oLn na
nent think OF referring the question Of our sovereign
power TO recognize the Confederate states Nc
aS n SSparn h s OF the Rbaa Yet ST. swsrd plight
state his opinion the subject ~ an argument 70 40
taken into consideration, although IN our judgment ~
was not q sound II he had made such reply there
could little doubt that the representative OF TIE td
states az the arbitration would have iell that MI SOW
ards argument was unsOund one aud ~ that event
we should have heard no moro about IT, But, W Mt.
possible that he would abandon il at the bidding Of the
noble lord After all, thsNas only hitch, and he be-
devised Everybody in England wished 20 have the dr,
Guilty amicgby arranged as dd every party In the thed
STATES with the exception ~ the Feuans. The noble
lord was himself most " settle, aud his spp0-
sitions were correct all the United stntes Govern
lie hoped the noble Lord would not allow the neg0ta-
lions 10 break of that ground, bat would rosorvo to
himself the right OF disproyng those Arguments We are
also 10 consider whether this matter could be settled
Otherwise than by arplron iis9r nes a. ne
with power from the noble Lord the matters Ia dispute
might bc arranged or course not for him 10 point
ou the exact mode in which this was 10 be done but he
trusted the noble Lord would take tho suggestion mo
Consideration. Hear hcarl
SIR G.. BOWER and Mr. sASDroRo then address the
MT. Mill IwlIe acknowledging the good feel
ing displayed toward America by The honorable member
Maiden (Nr. Sandfordj, thought h. and othcr SPEAK
ers had quite overlooked the fundamental question
namely: The distinction between the shipping oI contra
band articles and the Use OF neutral country ~ ue
was qufc te that vessel might have been sent To one
OF the bcligcJeuts, Just rs military stoies wee zen,
another without any violation OF nternatGnn Jaw NV
there was this condition, that the ship should 20 direct %
the port OF the begerent before commencing ho'un :
Now in the OF the Alabama, ts country Wa useu
for the fitting ont Of naval expedition against the COM
mcrce OF the North. The honorable member lr2m i,n-
kak fSr c. BOWyeD appeared 10 tbhh thl7 nouu ~ I"I
81 both parties enjoyed the same advantage but III
point OF fact only one side enjoyed the pentU on
H. A neutral power ought not 10 permit ~
territory To be used for the fitting out Of hostile exped
ton ii the Alabama had been lifted out IN Colieder.
ate port the North ON receiving the htcgchce OF D!
might have intercepted the departure OF nave bonhaido
tho harbor but being fitted opt IN ms country they hal
opportunity Of getting at H.. had we pyim'.vu Iil7
wiflly IL would have clearly been breach OF neutral
lily. Hear hearl The honorable member for Maiden
had blamed the noble Lord Tor conseuts 10 refer 20 ar
bitrati0n the question OF the violation on our munci
law, with which foreign country could nave nothing 10
blame what we were bound 70 do WAS TO make our NIT
nicipa law sufficient for tho iplhlent o! or m,sIna'
tOnal obligations. II was not sunceh hllea1y ana m
was the only ground Of complaint which could be Urged
The question whether we we're bound by lntcrna.
whether if we were SO bound did W that We could 10
f1l the obligations Ho congatul1ted tpe icuse ana me
public the issue between the United states and Thy.
country an exceedingly small one and that tbls
small point alone prevented tho setehhnt oi great
question. He did not think there was much room for
blame In any quarter This discussion had brought out
the evidence that the two parties to ne eorespoqdenco
did not understand one anOtler.9 Hear hoArl me
noble Lord, 1t seemed had not thoroughly understood
what the United States demanded ana inc United stalos
Government had not understood what the noble Lord
fused He apprehended that the United states had never
demanded That the Question whether S9 we're Pfematie
should be referred TO arbitration II could not be main
famed that TeCOgnitlOi even N0uIh
violation OF international law. lie had again and again
seen admitted by Americans and even IN the writings
~ Mr. Seward himself that our recognition Of tho
beigerent rights Of the South was thing, about the
truth OF which we had ~ international law a night
10 decide for ourselves. IL was, however, urged that
what we did was nnfriendy and 10 ts pre-.
clptaton even Unprecedented. But he was not aware 10
bad been Oontended that had thereby committed any
violation Of International law for whohiwe owed them
reparaton. What tho Americans had claimed was that
they should be allowed 10 use this early recognition
argument 10 convince the arbitrator that the depreda
tons OF tho Alabama would not have taken place at all
all events not 20 80 great al extent II II had not
been for the unfrendy act on our part. Whether this
was good argument Sho would not say But II 1t were
relevant argument for 20 advance they ought 10 be
allowed 10 use 10. And II IL were not relevant, why
should this country stipuate for ITS exclusion For We
were spulate for the exclusion OF every frivolous
irrelevant argument he feared there WOud be Very