The New York herald., 1869-05-12

should pay 1t on our knees But such discussions as
these are mere waste or time. II IL one misfortune
OF the reopening OF this question that it RENTS the
whole dispute to rhetorical discussion by rresponsi
Die persons. Mr.. Sumner may represent an innuen-
tlal American opinion on this euolect, or ne
NAV not; but ne does not represent the American
government. We have referred to his speech merely
as letting us know what great rhetoric!an could
make Of the argument IN audience OF tue american
people. Such discussions can, however, nave but
one result They retard the settlement instead OF
advancing It, Thev surround business question
with all the complications and distractions OF ex-
cltec feeing. What we want 10 settle Is. now iar
we are responsible Tor certain INJURIES inniclea on
viii pay the bill.
The London Times OF the LIST inst. again returns to
the subject Of the Alabama treaty after discussing
It at length the day previous. In this later article
1t dwells especially on the neutrality proclamation
OF her Majesty, and goes on to say
The proclamation OF neutrality made by the Queen
OF England In May 1851. was, according TO MIR. Sum
ner the source OF almost every evil OF the war. It
paced the rebels In the position OF an independent
Power; it encouraged them to persevere In their
treason 1t conferred on them, as beigerents rights
they mad not previously possessed Mr.. Sumner so
FAR admits the ccgency OF the arguments urged ON
THIS side tha he Is disposed to cOnne the offence OF
England 10 tne recognition or what ne calls ocean
belligerency." There is a dominion OF the land and
dominion OF the ocean; but whatever power the
rebels possessed on the lana they were always with
out power on the ocean. Admitting that they were
Oeilgerents on the land they were never oelliger-
ents on the ocean. But what right had we 10 draw
any such distinctions? What we saw clearly was
great cOnfllot on the other side or the Atlantic,
which af1ected every relation Of British commerce
with the Southern States, and extended over
the ocean and close up to our own waters by the
residents proclamation OF blockade, under which
British ships alleged to mediate the breaking of the
blockade could be seized of our coasts and
taken Into American ports. IT, as we confidently
maintain, the proclamation was justifabe, there is
nothing more to be said; but were 1t not 1t
would be absurd to argue that the issue OF the pro-
camat1on caused the blockade running and
heightened the war. Blockade running Is not legal
tzed by the Queens proclamation; the contrary,
is expressly prohibited. and those guilty of 1t and
the other offences enumerated told that hey will
do so 'at their peril ana of their own wrong, and
will in nowise obtain any protection from US
against any liabilities or penal consequences, but
Will! on the contrary, incur our high dspeasure by
such conduct" The whole tenor OF the pr0ciama-
tion Is prohibition, and 1t Is difficult to understand
how 1t can be accused Of sanctiOning, much less OF
causing the very acts against which 1t directed
Surely experience Is not wanting In America to
prove that the recognition Of belligerency or the
proclamation OF neutrality Is not necessary to
th0rlze blockade runningf 1t is said, on good au-
thOrity that at this very time the Cuban insurgents
are being supplied by American vessels, and yet
these "rebes'' have not received the character Of
belligerents either on land The only real
evil inflicted by the proclamation was the position
given BY 1t to the Alabama IN the ports of the British
empire, and this part OF the American grievance
would have come within the operation OF the reject
ed treaty.