The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-05-29
SATURDAY, MAY 80, 1869.
,rur IAJRDS AND THE ALABAMA.

THE LAIRDS AND THE ALABAMA.
Tuv voluminous discussions of the Alabama
ouestion in England have resulted in the devel-
onment of new theory. Alarmed by the dis
coyery that a paltry bribe could not induce the
American people to forget and forgive the
wrongs they have suffered, British journalists
have been busily rackng their brains for plau
sible arguments to resist our just demand, and
for true explanation of the causes which have
led them into the present difficulty. The theory
which has hitherto been generally accepted was
that the British Ministry was to blame for not
having exercised due diligence in prevent
ing the departure of the Alabama from
the shores of England. The friends of the
Ministry, finding this imputation odious, have
endeaVored to shift the responsibility upon the
Messrs. Laird, the shipbuilders. They, in turn,
being unwilling to be made scapegoats, have
recently published letter, in which they claim
that they violated no law of Great Britain in
constructing the Alabama; that they made no
attempt to conceal the fact that she was in
tended for the use of the Confederacy; and that
the customs authorities did not attempt to de-
tain her after they were notified that she was
about to be sent to sea, Notwithstanding their
knowledge of the existence of aflidayits setting
forth that crew had been enlisted to serve the
British journals, in commenting on this letter,
insist that its positions are correct, and that
the whole responsibility is thus thrust back
upon the British Parliament, for its neglect in
providing appropriate neutrality laws. This
view may or may not be strictly correct.
Englishmen are more competent to form a cor
rect judgment in regard to the character of their
own legislation than Americans. They can best
decide whether the Lairds, the government for
the time being, or Parliament are most to blame
But the theory which the Times now sets up,
that ''the question of liability between the
States for the ineompleteness of the law is
doubtful one" deeply concerns the American
people and if we are to be told that we can
have no redress because our wrongs were caused
by a neglect of the whole British nation,
insult will be added to injury. If the fault was
in truth a national one, the propriety and JUS
tice of national reparation are rather increased
than diminished; and if Great Britain is respon-
sibe for the acts OF her Ministers, she is doubly
responsible for the acts or omissions of
the omnipotent Parliament before which
kings as well ministers must bow. We
know that Great Britain, after due notice by the
American Minister, permitted q vessel con-
structed in her own shipyards to set forth to
prey upon American commerce, and that
LnlS was only one OF many ways III
which British energies assisted the enc
mics of the Republic. We know that
British gold British arms, British powder, am
munition, equipments, clothing, and armed ships
every aid, in fact, that Great Britain could rem
der-was as freely given to the Confederacy as if
JEFF. Davis and Queen Victoria had been sworn
allies. We were forced to fight not merely the
Confederates, but the Confederates armed, pro-
tected encouraged, and strengthened by Great
Britain. AS we triumphed over both, we
can afford to be merciful; but If Great Britain
wishes to allay the rancorous feeling caused by
her treacherous hostility, and to prevent us from
following her example, she must not attempt to
eVade responsibility by the plea that there was
nothing in her laws to prevent her citizens from
making common cause with our enemies. If
this plea is valid she will have no just cause of
complaint if we repeal our neutrality laws so far
as they apply to revolutions in the dominions of
Great Britain, and discard all obligations to
prevent the departure of Fenian expeditions
rom our shores.