The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-12-23
TIRE ALABAMA CLAIMS.

correspondence includes letters from Secretary Fish,
Minister Motley, Lord Clarendon, and Minister
ThorEtOn, all OF which are OF the highest interest.
The most important are the letters Of instruction
frem Mr.. Fish TO Minister Motley under dates Of
May 10 and September 25 1869. The latter is an
exceedingly able document. 1t gives a calm,
logical and dignined statement OF the case
OF the United States against Great Britain,
and without laying as much stress upon our, sent-
mental grievances as did Mr.. Sumner in his famous
speech, it more clearly explains exactly what the
United states had a right to expect from the Eng
lsh people and Government, why they Justly
offended at the unfriendly attitude assumed, what
the damages done by British antagonism were, and
what our specific claims for indemnity are. There
Is a vein OF biting sarcasm running through the
whole paper that will he doubly effective from the
absence OF passion or excitement, and the dgnihed
tone that Mr.. Fish maintains throughout The
subject is taken up at the beginning, and Mr..
Fish first points out how and why the
treaty concluded by MIR. Reverdy John
son came to be rejected. He shows that the
people of the United States were nearly unanimous
the subject and that, looking at the matter from
all points OF vew the same conclusion had been ar
rived at He also explains that the rejection OF
treaty of this character by the Senate does not
Cessarily imply any unfriendness, and points out
the great mpropriety of concluding such a treaty
Just as a administration was coming into power.
with regard to the special grievances of the
United States, Mr.. Fish says that
when in the winter Of 1860 and 1861, certain
States Of the American Union undertook by Ordi-
nances of secession to separate from the Others and
10 constitute OF their own vOlitOn and by force
new and Independent republic, under the name OF
the Confederate States OF America there existed as
between Great Britain and the United States a con-
,ition OF profound peace: their political relations
were prOfessedly and apparently of the most friendly
character. and their commercial and financial rea-
lions were as close and intimate in fact as they
seemed to be cordial in spirit, such became the
Two great liberal, progressive, and maritime and
commercial powers Of the world, associated as they
hu ctr tiag nf u1n,rn
and tradition
The Government of the United States had right
20 expect in this contest the earnest goodwill, SYM
patty, and moral support of Great Britain, instead
OF which, to the astonishment Of every one, her
Majesty's Government, on the 9th of May 1861, de-
termned to recognize the insurgents as belligerent
power, raising them to the same level of neutral
rights as the United States This decision was an
nounced in the House of Commons on the same day,
and on the 18th OF May the Queens proclamation
was issued. On this point, Mr.. Fish says very
plainly
''The President does not deny, on the contrary he
maintains, that every sovereign power decides for
itself on it's responsibility, the question whether
il will not, at given time, accord the status Of
belgerenCy to the inSurgent subjects OF another
mower az also the larger question of the indepen-
Cence OF such SUBJECTS and their accession to the
family of sovereign States. But the righfulness Of
such an act depends on the occasion and circum-
stances and it is act, like the sovereign act OF
war, which the morality of the public law and prac-
ticc requires should be delineated seasonable and
begerenCy, indeed, like national independence
being but an existing fact officially recognized as
such, and without which such a declaration is only
the indirect manifestation OF a particular line OF
policy.
''The preCiptancy of the declaration of the
Queens Government was, as Mr.. Bright character
lied it, the remarkable celebrity, undue and un-
friendly haste with which it was made, appears in
its having been determined on the 9th OF MAY four
days prior to the arrival in London Of any official
knowledge of the Presidents proclamation of April
l9, 1861, by reference to which the Queens prCcla-
nation has since been defended aud that it was
actually signed on the 18th of May the very day of
the arrival OF Mr.. Adams, the new American Minis
ter as II in the particular aim of Ioresalling and
preventing explanations on the part of the United
States"
"The prematureness OF the measure is further
shown 10y the very tenor of the proclamation, which
sets forth its own reason namely Whereas, hos
tihtes have unhappily commenced between the Gov
eminent of the United States of America and certain
States styling themselves the Confederate States of
America Moreover, it il not pretended by the pro-
clamation that exists, but only a contest. In
reference to which 1t is not unimporant to note that
the language used is such as would fully apply to
parties wholly Independent one Of the other, SO as
thus to negative or TO suppress, at least, the critical
circumstances that this bare commencement Of hos
tites this ncipient contest, was a mere domestic
act of insurrection u thin the United States. But
that which cOnclusvely shows the unreasonable
precipitancy of the measure is the fact that on
that day, May 13, 1861 and, indeed, until long after
wards, not battle had been fought between the
insurgents and the United States, nor a combat,
even, save the solitary and isolated attack at
Fort Sumter. Did such bare commencement of
There was at that time no such thing as population
elevated into force and by the prosecution OF war
which Mr.. Canning points out the test of belhge-
rent condition. The assumed beigerency of the
Insurgents tction-a war on paper only, not in
the fied-like paper blockade; the anticipation OF
supposed benigerency to come, but which might
never have come, If not thus anticipated and thus
encouraged by the Queens government. Indeed, as
forcibly put by Mr. Adams the Queens declaration
had the effect OF creating posterior belligerency
instead OF merely acknowledging actual fact and
that beligerency, so far as il was maintained, pro-
ceedng from the ports Of Great Britain and her
dependencies alone, with the aid and co-eperation
Of subjects OF Great Britain
This is the whole matter in q nutshell; but Mr.
Fish goes on with statement OF the effects of this
action on the part OF England; how It encouraged
and maintained the Rebellion; how maritime
enterprises in the ports of Great Britain in behalf of
the insurgents which would otherwise have been
pratical, became lawful and thus Great Britain
became, and TO the end continued the arsenal the
navy yard, and the treasury OF the insurgent Con-
fedeTates, adding, with fine sarcasm that ga spec
tacle was thus presented wiGhout precedent or
parallel in the history OF civilized nations"
Mr.. Fish then reviews the uniform policy OF Eng-
land in all OF her own numerous conflicts and con
Victs her by her own record. He shows that as re-
CARDS France and Spain, the original ill-judged act
OF political manifestation not supplemented by
subsequent acts Of hostility, and he asks what
would the Queens Government have said II the
United States had accorded the rights OF begerents
to the insurgents in India OF Ireland in the same
circumstances. la line, Mr.. Fish pins down John
Bun very tight, and while contending that there is
no necessity for going to war, he urges the ex
pediency OF a satisfactory settlement OF the matter
under dispute at the earliest practicable moment
Mr.. Motley was instructed TO suggest thai the eX-
citement caused by the rejection OF the johnson
treaty had now abated and that the United States
would gladly resume negotiations on the subject at
Washington.
The latter OF Lord Clarendon IN Mr. TboYn+on