The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1868-02-04
CHI Al RI Is ON
TUESDAY MORNING, FEBRUARE4, 1868.
The Alabama Claims.

| trymen that they are drlltlng toWaros
war with the United States, and urges then
to open their eyes to the consequence OF
suspension of all negotiations with regare
to the Alabama claims. 1t is not often tha
an English noblemsn writes as frankly anc
freely upon ve1ed question as Lord Ho
BART has done in this instance, and his
opinions are likely to receive calm, conside
ration on both sides of the Atlantic.
According to Lord HOBART. the letter Of
Mr.. SEWARD to Mr.. ADAMS breaking off ne
gotiations respecting the Alabama difficulty
| is probably of more consequence, as far as
the future of England is concerned, than
any similar document published in recent
| times. The failure Of these negotiations
means unfriendly relations between Eng,
land and the United States. Unfriendly
relations mean the risk of war. a war be-
tween the United States and England would
be so calamity as great as any which could
aflict the world" Lord HOBART says that
this country has Loyalty done its duty in
regard to Fenianism, but it may now be
obliged s'to conform its principles and
policy to those which it considers to have
been the principles and policy of this coun-
try during the American civil wa. Moth
ing else is wanting to make Fenianism,
which is now only troublesome aud vexa-
tious, serious and formidable.
"The matter, then, stands thus: The
United States Government has pressed
upon the British Government formidable
list of claims on account of losses inflicted
upon American citizens by the depcedations
of the Alabama and other vessels of her
class, and has at the same time stated very
clearly the grounds on which it urges the
settlement of those claims. Those grounds
are ,recapitulated by Mr.. sEWABD in
his dispatch of the 9th Of August,
1866, and are shortly as follows: That by
the Queens proclamation of 1861 belliger-
ent rights were wrongfully conceded to
certain slaveholding States then in insur-
rection against their lawful government;
that, in consequence of such concession,
those States obtained, among other advsn-
tages, power TO assume national flag, and
to seize and destroy goods and shipping Of
the United States; that thereupon, from the
very nation which had mainly oscasioned
4h;s in;-e.i01, thvr. r-v---anA hwlII anG.
powerful xessssllss ssls ef #sr, which buoame the
recognised property Of The insurgents, and
inflicted enormous injury upon American
trade and navigation; that, to prevent such
vessels from leaving her shores, No serious,
or, at least, no sufficient effort, was made by
the government, of this country; that, more
over, suoh vessels were repeatedly har-
bored and protected in various ports Of Great
Britain and her colonies, and that Great Bri-
tain owes to the United States indemnity for
the losses which have thus been sustained.
The British Government while refusing to
admit the validity of this reasoning, offers
to refer the question to arbitration; but
on one oondition--that in the case submit
ted to the arbiter no account shall be taken
of the recognition of the insurgent States as
belligerents. by the royal proclamation Of
1861. On this condition it insists, because it
considers that the question as to the legality
or propriety of that recognition is Of kind
upon which "every State must be held to
be the sole judge of its duty" The United
States, on the other hand, while asserting
to arbitration, desire that the whole con-
troversy' may be referred to arbitration as
it stands; not for decision upon its merits,
but in order that their demsnd fos compen-
sation may be laid before the aroiter, ac-
oompanied by the arguments on which it is
founded"
This is q concise statement of che whole
matter in dispute, and Lord HOBART says:
cit comes then, to this,-that the British
Government has refused, not only to yield
to the demand of the United States, but to
submit the case, except in very partial
and limited form, to arbitration. Is the
British nation prepared to accept the re-
sponsibility? To decline to comply with the
requisition of foreign power because you
consider it unreasonable is one thing; to
refuse to adopt the only existing method,
except war, of settling the dispute, is quite
another. And it may we'll be asked whether,
if question such as that of the recogni-
ton of the South as belligerent, inficting,
as it did, serious loss and injury upon o
friendly State, be not q proper nubject fer
arbitration, any great question Of foreign
policy can ever hererfter be decided by any
other than those time-honored but some
what illogical authorities, bullets and cold
steel"
At the time of signing the Declaration Of
Paris in 1856, the British Minister proposed
that paragraph should be inserted in the
protocols expressing hope that in future
all nations will, before declaring war, refer
the question at issue to the judgment Of
neutral State. This was agreed 10 by the
four great. Powers, yet the British Govern
ment, on the first opportunity for applying
it, protests against its application.
"There is, however" says Lori HOBART,
ssno need TO rely upon this argument. for in