The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-03-09

supposed there were few now who would not look
upon all those who were connected with that vessel
as among the greatest indicators OF the age Tn
fortunately, they were never brought before crimi-
nal tribunal and 1t was perhaps account OF their
immunity that other similar attempts were made
some successful, others not so. He need not recall
TO the memory OF the House the case OF the
rams also built by Messrs. Laird. The gov
eminent BY that time had learned that II
they followed the. strict line they had pur
sued In the case OF the Alabama Wiz, OF
insisting upon strict evidence to connect the vessel
with the South and d.sregardng the surrounding
circumstances OF violent suspicion. the vessels
would get away. In the case of the rams the gov
eminent overstepped the line OF the law and de-
taned them on their own responsibility, pending
further inquiries II would be recolected that Lord
Cairns made fierce attack upon the government,
and onlyfailed by six votes In defeating them. Was
there q member OF this House. he wondered, who
did not wish that the same course had been pursued
In the case Of the Alabamas Another vessel called
the Pampero, was also seized at Glasgow, and
was condemned In the courts there. At the
close Of the war she was restored to her
owners, who responded to that act OF kindness
by Immediately rushing into another similar enter
PRISE and under the name OF the Tornado that ves-
sci had done her best to compllcate our relations
with Spain. Two other vessels, however, escaped
without far as he could learn, any information
complaint having been made by the American Minis
ter They were the Georgia and the Sea King, after
wards the Shenandoah. Both these vessels sailed by
stealth from ports, met other vessels bringing
guns and men to them somewhere beyond our juris-
dlction. and then started the same errand the
Alabama. In the case Of the last vessel he should
mention that q letter from the American Minis
ter at London to his own government showed
thnro WOO mn fN ho fha
other side Of the question as to the negligence
Of the American authorities. He complained In his
letter that he was not yet informed Of the where
abouts OF the federal cruisers and said II he had
been he might have BEEN able to stop the vessel
he knew what was going on at Liverpool. The yes
sells he had named constituted for long interval the
cruising force he believed, of the Confederate navy,
except, perhaps, two three coasting prvateers
some floating batteries which never left their ports.
OF these six vessels four escaped from our ports.
The damage done by them was very great. They
captured or burned upwards Of two hundred mer-
chant vessels with cargoes valued at about
f3,OOo,0 900. A considerable portion Of that
loss. however, fell upon English insur-
ance Companies Another portion fell in
the same way owing to the enhancement OF the price
OF oil and other commodities destroyed. But the
damage TO the Americans was not measured only by
the loss OF these vessels; their commerce fed their
dags, freights rose 80 high In consequence OF the
rate Of insurance that their vessels could not get
them; large numbers Of their vessels sold either
really cousively to US to be registered under
nag What they lost we gained. In two years the
foreign commerce Of America, carried under their
nag fell to about one-third OF what II was before,
while that under our nag doubled. This, perhaps,
not unnaturally raised suspicion in the minds Of
the people In the North that the ship build
ers and ship owners Of Liverpool were not
even disnterested the aid which they gave to the
slave owning South Those only who had travelled
ciate the harm which had been done By the cases
which he mentioned or the extent to which Ill feel
ing had been reused in that country. At the same
subject, for he did not think that war would ever
arise out Of the matter. He believed that It was the
and In America to see this question brought
to proper, amicable conclusion, and the
and what should the conditions
Of the arbitration. He would next refer to the man.
matter was the recognition OF the beigeren rights
Of the Sou:herners; and MT Adams arrived IN this
Cucn the very dsy the procamaon Of neutrality
was Issued. His first task appears 20 have been 70
re9ret thss the British had decided to
issue that proclamation, which ut once raised the ius
sprgent states into bogerents: Lord. Russell. re:
pied that the proclamation due TO the advice OF
nizing the insurgent States as belligerents no
opinion was expressed on the merits OF the
assent to that View under other circumstances inti
mated that the act appeared TO be little more rapid
than the occasion actually called FOR. Al subse-
quent period Mr.. Adams protested In conversation
against the course pursued, but In the diplomatic
communications offlcal despatch between the two
be found until very recent period although in the
letters from Secretary Seward to Mr. Adams there Is
case in regard to the Confederate cruisers No sooner
was It known that the Alabama had escaped and was
burning American vessels than Mr.. Adams made
claim against our government for compen-
sation for the damage. He founded his claim
on the remissness Of government in
permitting her escape, but he said nothing Of the
question OF recognition In connection with It. This
was in November, 1862 Complaint was also made that
we allowed this vessel to enter our ports and that we
tive In October, 1858. Further information having
been received OF the number Of vessels burned by the
cruisers the correspondence that point was
sumed and In the course OF that correspondence Mr.
Adams for the first time offered arbitration to the
recognition Of belligerent rights the complaint being
confined solely to the rcmissness OF the government,
IN no, mn ne ole % ana r
and thereby preventing those vessels leaving British
ports On that occasion he did not find that Lord Rus
sell took notice OF this offer Of arbitration The noble
lord simply met the claim OF Mr.. Adams and deuied
It's justice. From that time the claims lay dormant
for nearly two years; and when they were renewed,
In the case of the last vessel, the question OF be0-
erency was then for the first time brought forward.
In the course Of the correspondence Lord Russell; ad
verted 10 the claims made by Portugal In 1874. and
pointed out how similar they were 10 those
now made by the federal government on
states took the same line OF defense then as
England did now The noble Lord then adverted 20
the question OF arbitration, and observed that he
could not consent to submit TO the arbitration Of any
foreign government the two points-whether the
British government had acted with due diligence In
maintaining the neutrality they had proclaimed and
whether the law officers OF the crown had properly
whc questions could be submitted 10 foreign arb
tration with any regard to the dignity OF this country
With this the correspondence closed for PERIOD
but President Johnson, In his message 10 Congress in
1885, observed that the accordance o! beillgerent
rights 10 the insurgent States unprecedented,
and expressed regret that Great Britain had declined
arbitration on the subject.
President Johnson's message, December 1865, says
'the formal accordance OF belligerent rights to the
insurgent States was unprecedented, and has not
been justified by the Issue. But In the system OF
neutrality pursued by the powers which made tina.
conceaeiou there was n marked difference Rritish