The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-04-29
THE NEW NEGOTIATIONS ON THE ALA
BAMA CLAIMS.

From the N. Y. Times.
The Nation, in an able and recondite article
upon 'Mr. Sumner and the Proclamation of
Neutrality, discusses some of the legal points
connected with the Alabama claims-points
which we are apt to overlook in the hullabaloo
of popular rhetoric and invective, but which are
those upon which the question, as legal one,
will doubtless turn.
In the main, this article agrees with Mr.. Sum-
ner's conclusions that we are entitled to such
convention will ''give reparation on the
ground that principle of international law has
been violated on the part of England" and it
furthermore maintains that the acknowledgment
of such violation lis perfectly consistent with
national honor and dignity" But it arrives at
this conclusion by different process of reason
ing from Mr.. Sumner's-a process which, if
somewhat abstruse, is new and striking.
Mr.. Sumner, as his speech shows, argues as
if, to start with, the Queens proclamation of
neutrality was IN atseg "A violation OF lnterna-
tional law, and hence sufficient ground of in
ternatonal complaint, even had no Alabama
come from English ports to prey upon our COM
merce. Whether Mr.. Sumner would stand by
that doctrine thus independently stated we do
not know-very likely he would not but his
train of reasoning seems to proceed from some
such mental proposition, and in so far agrees,
| it must be owned, with the popular theory.
Thus, for example, Mr. Sumner says:-
"Ocean belligerency being fact and not
prncipe,' can be recognized only on evidence show
ing its actual e1istence, according to the rule first
stated by Mr.. Canning and afterwards recognized
| for 1t did not exist and never mas existed.
But, if we understand Mr.. Summers applca-
| ton of this clear distinction between recogni-
| tion of belligerency as fact and recognition OF
| bellgerency principle, he charges that Dy
| her proclamation Great Britain proposed the
| latter and that, accordingly the effect was to
| make the Alabama a Confederate prlvateer.
| According to the Nation, however, this proca-
| nation may be interpreted as proposing 10 re-
| cognize the belligerency only according 10 the
/ h,,t fIa Aloha nn
| upon the ocean by Confederate means, but by
neutral ii. e., English) means, this vessel could
not be recognized as belligerent according TO the
fact. Indeed, she could only have been recoS-
nized, if at all on ''principle" is, we sup
pose, on the theory of her having all the capacl
ties of recognized nationality.
The distinction is, as we have intimated a fine
| one, and somewhat abstruse but 1t VIII De Detter
| appreciated, perhaps in practical appncatlon
of 1t to the case as it stands. Now that the pro-
clamation of neutrality was and still is q source
of iH-feeling, cannot be questioned; but as the
Nation says we must ''confine our claims 10 the
limits of fact and international law; and the eX-
istence of q certain English national feeling or
sympathy, while it may have been an Interior
cause of greater losses, cannot be made OASIS
of demands and reparations." At all events, the
proclamation was not necessarily an attrlDutloh
of nationality. The question Is whether 1t was
not simply recognition OF belligerency accord
ing to the fact. Such is certainly the interpre-
tation which the English Government has
always put upon It, ana such IL VIII peaI;
We ourselves insist, and are compelled
by our own case to insist, that the Confederacy
never could have acquired such a stdtuS o.
nationality (either by this proclamation or II
any other way) as would create prlyateer ou
of cruiser equipped in neutral port anC
issuing therefrom. Such a status the Umtet
States unquestionably had; but Mr.. Sumner
after so clear a statement Of the difference be
tween the two sorts of recognition possible
seems to argue as if an English proclamation o
| neutrality between ''the two contendng par
ties" could have given the Confederacy a stdtt
of nationality, and hence in itself become th
, subject of complaint, not only morally as al
expression of misdirected sympathy, but legal.
; under international law.
The source of confusion is this. 1t Is quit
! true that the British public may have imagined
: and probably did imagine, that the Queens pro
! clamation could confer nationality where non
: existed, and hence regarded the Alabama, Whel