The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-12-24
The Alabama Claims-The Case As II
Stands.

The Alabama Claims-rhe Case As 1t
Stands.
The correspondence between the State De-
partment and onr Minister in London and with
the British government on the Alabama claims,
which was submitted to Congress, and which
we published yesterday, shows that TO pro-
gress has been made toward a settlement and
that the case stands about in the same position
it did when the late administration went out OF
power last March, The rejection of the con-
Lord Clarendon by the Senate, and the
speeches of Senators on that occasion, seem to
have struck with such force that the subject was
dropped for time. However, Mr.. Fish, the
new Secretary Of State under the new admin
istration Of General Grant, deemed it his duty
in May last to address Mr.. Motley, the sue
cessor of Mr.. Reverdy Johnson at the Court of
ST. James, on the question. He says in this
despatch, that the United States government
in rejecting the recent convention abandons
nor the hope of an early, satisfactory and
friendly settlement of the questions pending
between the two governments, and Mr.. Mot-i
ley is directed to call the attention of Lord
Clarendon to these views.
On the 18th of June Mr. Fish again writes
to Mr.. Motley, informing him that whenever
negotiations or discussions on the subject of
the Alabama claims shall be renewed the
President wishes them TO be carried on in
Washington, and that the time will arrive for
propose discussion or intimate desire to
reopen the negotiations.
Mr.. Fish writes again to Mr.. Motley, Sep
TENDER 25 to the effect that time having been
allowed for the ''snbsidence of any excitement
or irritation growing out of recent events
that is, of the rejection of the convention and
the speeches in the Senate--the President thinks
the discussion or negotiation might be re-
opened. Upon this Mr. Fish writes a lengthy
despatch, going over the whole ground again
that Mr.. Seward and Mr.. Reverdy Johnson
had gone over before, stating the cause Of our
grievances against Great Britain and the
foundation of our claims for reparation. It is
the same history of the case as presented pre-
viously, and which is known to our readers
generally. In . note of the same date to Mr..
Motley the Secretary Of State reiterates that
should the British government be disposed to
discuss the question the President hopes that
government will be willing to conduct the dis
cussion at Washington.
On the 9th of November Lord Clarendon
writes to Mr.. Thornton the British Minister at
Washington, reciting the substance of Mr..
Fish's communication Of September 25, and,
after expressing regret that the former pro-
posed settlement was rejected, states that the
initiation of fresh propositions should come
from the United States. He says that it must
be obvious ''her Majesty's government cannot
make any new proposition or run the risk of
another unsuccessful negotiation until they
have information more clearly than that which
is contained in Mr.. Fish's despatch respecting
the basis upon which the government would
be disposed to negotiate" He complains that
Mr. Fish has not given any indication of the
means or terms Of adjustment, and that the
United States should expect proposition to
come from that side after rejecting the conven-
ton that had already been negotiated. This
is as far as the correspondence goes, which
has been brought up to within few weeks of
the present time. Whether the administra-
ton has done anything since or any negotia-
ton is now going on we are not informed.
| OF course there 10 q good deal Of diplomatic
subterfuge in these communications, and par
| ticularly in that of Lord Clarendon but we
must say he makes q good point when he
argues that the United States ought to state
on what basis it is disposed to reopen nego-
tations. Why, after all the terrible and in
fated rhetoric of Mr. Sumner in the Senate on
these Alabama claims, after all that has been
said and written, and after this long delay,
should not the United States government be
ready to hand in its bill, or to state the terms
on which 1t will accept a settlement? DO VIC
want indemnity for actual losses to our citi-
zens by the Anglorebel corsairs? IT so, nc
Englishman is needed TO tell us what the
amount is. We can cast it mp and state the
amount of the bill without admitting improper
claims or dealing unfairly. Does the gov
ernment propose to go further than this,
and to claim damages for the nation fol
the destruction of our mercantile and
commercial interests? II so, lot us say
what the amount should be or what com
peusation We require. Do we want an aoknow