The New York herald., 1869-05-31
4 rALk wrrs cExE1AL BUTLER.

His Views About the AIabama Clains-
England - Nen-InisrceHrse - Anne xatien -
BOutwelps Financial Policy-PoIitical Mat
ters Generally.
Correspondence Of the Boston Post May 29.l
Ipaid q visit TO General Butler at Lowell yester-
day, and, to use the language OF this anniversary
week, had "protracted mesting'' with him: we
began, after talking OF minor Matters TO discuss
the present condition. OF
rHE ALABAMA CONTROVERSY,
and THIS among other things, is wnat General Butler
.srhere are two points which have not been sum-
ciently considered IN the controversy about the Ala
bama claims, in regard to the legal status OF the
question. as far az effected by the too great haste
that England was In TO give beigerent rights TO the
South. One Is the preamble 10 Mr.. Llncoin's pro-
clamati0n. which recltes in substance that whereas
the C0nfed crates are about arming prlvafeers ana
that therefore tins proclamation Of blockade is issued
10 shut up their ports and render II Impossible lor
them To do mischief.
ligerent rights on the ocean, because otherwise tne
proclamation against them should have been against
them as pirates.
..But we are still more seriously compromised in
this question by the decision OF the supreme Court
OF the United States In the case of Moran against the
Equitable Insurance Company. which was SUIT
brought TO recover policy OF insurance which as
sured against lawful capture, but not against pratt
.'The vessA for the taking OF which this suit was
brought was ON the Mississippi river, and party OF
OoDiederates boarded It and captured It. alleging
to be prize Of TO the Confederate States. The
insurance company resisted the ayment OF the loss
the ground that this was not lawful capture be-
cause the Confederates had no belgcrent rights on
the water.
'The assured set up the plea that the proclama.
ton OF blockade gave the Conederates Delilaerent
rights and General Cushing argued that the blockade
was a pacific blockade, and recognized no such
rights in the Confederates-taking precisely the
ground that Mr. sumner does in his speech as 10 the
effect OF the blockade in than regard"
''IIOw did the Court decide ~ inquired.
THE SUPREME COURT AGAINST SUMMERS THEORY.
belligerent rights 10 make this lawful capture,
which OF course could not be- unless the Confeder-
ates had beligerent rights Oh the ocean-thus over
ruling General Cushing's argument"
''What was the date OF tins capture-before or
after the Queens proclamation nf"
ut was on the 9th Of May, 1861, If recollect
right" he said; "eeven days before the proclama-
tiOn OF the British Queen SO that we are concluded
upon this question as far as the decision or the
Supreme Court Is cOncerned-on the question OF
belligerency on the ocean-a fact that the English
lawyers will not be slow to take advantage OF we
put our case solely upon the question whether
England was in too great haste"
OUR RECOGNITION OF BEILIGERENr Rights
''How soon were belligerent rights recognized by
our government on the landf''
.'The first exchange" said General Butler, twas
made on the 10th day OF June. at Fortress Monroe.
That exchange recognized them as belligerents on
the land.n
..Didnt seward practically recognize them as bel
ligerents before that?' asked.
..Seward,n he answered, chad recognized them
beligerents only by the proclamation Of blockade
and, afterwards, when some OF them were seized as
pirates for captures made on the high seas and were
to be ted the were stayed by order OF the gov
ernment.n
"When was this, Generaly'
'About the time Of the queens proclamation"
- told me that Chief Justice Chase said that
we could stand five minutes before any court In
Europe on the legal positions OF Summers speech.
What do you think about il fi
"Of course that must be so, because we are
estOpped from pushing the argument Uy the Judg-
ment OF our Supreme Court"
GENERAL BUTLER's POSITION.
"What is y0ur position, thenS' inquired.
~ insist still" saia the General, 'that the safer
proposition to put our case upon Is that the whole
action Of England was part OF her policy and in con-
sequence OF her desire to break down this govern
ssBy England you mean the Engllshment govern
mentY The people, except the ruling classes, were
surely friendly enOughf
81 mean the government, OF course. England had
two theOries-One was to establish a Northern Con-
federacy to curb us In the North, and to establish
Southern Conlederacy. which conld curb US IN the
SOUTH and thus control the trade OF the Continent"
'Was IL not true,n asked, that at one period OF
the war France proposed to England To recognize
the Southern ConlederacyS And don't you remem
ber the statement that at that time Russia had de-
clared her willingness to do 10 n England could be
induced to jOlnf'' ~
II don't understand" replied Mr.. Butler, that
1t. Spain was, but not Russia. Russia and Turkey
were the two governments-and they were the only
two-that We have had no trouble about"
THE ACTION OF FRANCE.
s'How do you account for the fact that France
which was in earnest In her desire 10 nave the con-
fcderacy recognized, has been allowed TO escape de
nunclation, when England. which refused to follow
her advice, has been universally anathematzedy y
For the same reason said Butler, 'tllat although
a man might intend TO murder, u he never
did the act itseii; yon could neither punish ,,i,
nor h,n n0d INN M aoe hS d%r damages nam YOU
the peace. The difference was that England
did the acts-France taking great care 70 allow
nothing to be done on her part or on her behalf
which would involve her IN any controversy with
this country. Perhaps her reason was, that until
she could get the support OF England, being COM
pcated in the AFFAIRS Of Mexico, she was altogether
TOO vulnerable"
| handed the General article from the New
York ECeniIig Post, which ironically discoursed on
Buffers financial theory or war with England as
IL had been reported by Washington correspondents.
asked what he had really said about the effect Of
war with England.
lie replied:-
there would be commercial benefit IN a war with
England, bus that II war broke out the result would
be beneficial 10 this country.
.'How ~ inquired.
1--WE have imported one hundred and twenty one
millions from the LIST or January to the lst OF May.
this year, and exported only sixty millions-0ur
bonds not only going out to pay for the balance
from these imports but tne gold with which the debt
II paid Is also borrowed on our bonds at eighty
cents on the dollar England buys substan-
tally nothing Of us IN comparison with what
she sends to US. Now. only proposed 10 treat her
~ a nation, as one Individual treats an unkind
ncighbor who has injured him. He simply says,
shall have nothing to do with yon, either socially or
In The way OF business; and that irrespective OF the
question as 10 whether his neighbour had the legal
right TO iDiure him. or did something Illegally for
whlcn suit Snouu ne DrOuGht MOsi prudent persons
prefer 10 refuse all intercourse. Now. ! think the
United states should treat England In the way.
That was what We did in 1s0s"
how IT NIGHT PAY.
"Wuh what result ~
"with good result to The country" said Mr.. But
Ter. ''for was the very beginning Of the establish
mcnt OF our manufactures. Up To that time we had
substantially none. True, war came on because
OF The claim OF the right Of search and the imprison
ment OF our sailors. And | should think that the
writer IN the Eretiing Post OF whicn you speak,
was simply re-echoing of the federalist TRADES
against Jefferson for what they were pleased to term
Jim Madisons block
''what have you said about declaring war against
Engandff
Nothing answered the General. "rhere Ia no
occasion to declare against England. | simply
SAID
NON-INrERCOrRsE,
but that, In ease Of war what we shall save IN I'M
portation and make by capture would he quite
equivalent 10 the expense OF what would be substan
TALLY naval warfare"
''StIll. General. you have not quite clearly stated