The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-03-23
Our Differences with England-Settle-
ment OF the Alabama Claims.

Our DlueTenCeS Will EHSlanu-SeVlIe-
ment OF the Alabama Claims.
From the N. p. Times.
1t is quite clear that the Alabama treaty,
concluded by Mr.. Reverdy Johnson with the
English Government, will be rejected by the
Senate; and that rejection will be approved by
public sentiment. A great many motives
combine to produce this result. A large and
influential part of the Senate is opposed to
ratifying the treaty, because doing so would
give triumph to Andrew Johson's admins
tration and to Mr.. Seward. Others object to
specific provisions of the treaty; and others
still maintain that the wrongs of which we
complain are not such as can be red essed by
payment of the pecuniary damages which we
have sustained.
This may be true. We are inclined to think
it is. But it is by no means easy to see how,
upon this theory, those wrongs can be re-
dressed, or in what way any adjustment Of
difficulties can possibly be reached.
We insist that the conduct of England in
conceding belligerent rights to the Confede-
rates, in acknowledging their flag on the high
seas before they had achieved their indie
pendenoe as a nation, in creating for them
a navy when they had not naval port on
the face of the earth, in building, arming,
and manning for them ships-of-w and
sending them out in their service to prey
upon our commerce, was what gave to the
Rebellion tne enoTmous proportions IL nnally
assumed, prolonged the war at least one or
two years, added enormously to its cost in life
and in money, and was in gross violatiOnf of
the laws of neutrality, and open disregard of
the obligations of friendship which England
had assumed by treaties with the United
States. Such acts are not atoned for such
wrongs are not redressed-by paying for the
commerce they destroyed, or the losses they
caused. Admit this to be true; the question
at,n hnxry tInxy 90 ho raa.
In what form can the English offer satisfaction,
or in what form can we demand it? Mr..
Johnson's administration strove very hard
to bring about settlement Of this question.
Mr.. Seward spent four laborious years, first
in trying to prevent England from doing us
the damage she did, and then in trying to
convince her that we we're entitled to some
signal redress, which he put in the form OF
payment of losses sustained. And England
has finally been brought to take the initial
step towards settlement Of the question on
this basis.
Now the mere rejection of this basis does
not establish any other. The question will
still remain, and none of its difficulties will
be removed. General Grants administration
will succeed to all the embarrassments in
dealing with it which Mr.. Johnson's encoun-
tered, with some very formidable ones freshly
added, by the oontemptuous reputation
which everything thus far done is likely to
receive. What demands will General Grant
make upon England, in satisfaction of our
complaints The Londen Times in an article
which we recently copied, contends that
nothing less than the concession by England
that there was no ,Oar, but merely a rebellion,
an 6meut6, or an insurrection ofwhich England
had no right to know anything whatever, will
! satisfy the United States. This, though
stated in extravagant terms, is not as wide
OF the truth as the Times affects to
pelleVe. Throughout the whole diplomatic
controversy Mr.. Seward insisted that the con-
met In the United States was not lUdr in any
sense known to public law, or in any such
sense as authorized the resort to principles
aPPtoaple 10 war between sovereign and inde-
pendent powers. lie insisted that in the eve
OF public law it was merely an insurreotion.
10 which only one of the parties had ever
obtained recognition as an independent nation
or had ever established claim to such reoog.
nition-and until such claim should be ests.
blished he demanded that England should
remain faithful TO the treaty obligations int
which she had entered with the United States
and abstain from aiding in any way, or To any
extent, those who We're striving TO overthroX
their authority and destroy their nationa
existence.
We still insist that this position was right
and that England ought to have acted upoI
1t. Her wrong TO us lay in the fact that sbe
did not do SO. Virtually and practically sh,
joined our enemies In making war upon ms
not SO fully nor so openly as she mieht. bnt
fully enough to do us enormous damage anf
as openly as she dared. General Grant vii
probably feel that England owes us an ao
J knowledgment, that she was wrong in treat
ing the Rebellion as war, and the Confede
raoy as q sovereign nation, capable of maxim,