The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1869-12-23


land.
/ The previous order of the Go1era-
mene Tor ITS approval covers the acts
OF subordl nate officers in both eoun-
trles; or II not In England. assuredly
10 tne United States. Under mu-
nicIpai laws the government finds no
dlhculty la arresting ships charged
with actual or Intended violations of
sovereign rights or neutral duties of
| the States. Signal examples of this
occur In the history of the United
States. THE arrest of the bark
Many during the Russian war is
stated as a case in point. But
although such acts of violation of
law we're frequent in Great Britain.
| and susceptible of complete. If not
teehnleal proof, notoriously haunted
directly in the face of the world,
vanished over, If at all, with
the shallowest pretext of de-
ception. Yet no efficient step
appears to have been taken
| By the British Government to enforce
the execution of ITS municipal laws,
or to vindicate the majesty of its out
ragged sovereign power, AMI the Gov
| ernment of the United States cannot
believe it would conceive itself want
ing in respect for Great Britain, to
impute that the Queens ministers are
so much hanpered by judicial diff
.cultles, that the local administration
Is reduced TO such state of legal i'm
/ potency as to deprive the Govern
ment OF the capacity to uphold its
sovereignty against local wrong doers,
or Its neutrality as regards other
sovereign powers. If, indeed, this
were 50, the case of reclamation on
the part of the United States, would
only be the more positive and sure, for
the law of nations assumes that each
Govern nent Is capable of discharg-
ing its international obligations aud
perchance, if it be not, then the
absence OF such capability is itself a
specific ground Of responsibility for
the consequences. But the Queens
Government would not be content
to admit, nor will the Government of
the United States presume 10 impute
to It such political organization of
the British Empire, ss TO imply any
want of legality on its part to dis
charge Ia the amplest manner all its
duties of sovereignty and amity to-
wards other powers. It remains only,
In this relation, to refer to one other
! point, viz the question of negligence
/ on the part OF the officers OF the
British Government, whether superior
or subordinate, to detain the Confed-
crate cruisers, and especially the Ala
hama. On this point the Presi-
dent conceives that little needs
now be said, for. various eogent
reasons: First, the matter has
been exhaustively discussed already
Lby the Department or by sue
cessiVe American Ministers. IF the
question Of negligence be discussed
| with fTankness, it must bo treated in
this instance as a case of extreme
negligence, which Sir Vim. Jones has
taught us to regard as equivalent or
approximate to evil intention. The
1 question of negligence, therefore. can
not he presented without danger of
thought or language disrespeetful
towards the American Ministers and
the President while proposing. Of
course his sense of duty requires him
to sustain the rights of the United
States in all their amplitude, yet
intends to speak and act in relation
to Great Britain in the same spirit Of
international respect which he expects
from her 10 relation to the United
States, and he is sincerely desirous
that all discussions between the two
governments may DO SO conducted as
not only to prevent any aggrayation Of
existing difficulties, but TO lend to
such reasonable and amicable de-
termination as best becomes two
great nations, oil common origin and
conscious of dignity and strength. /
assume, therefore, permitting detailed
discussion 10 this respect, that the
negligence of the officer OF the British
Government in the matter of the Ala
bama, at least, was gross and in
excusable, and such as in
disputably to devolve on that Gov
ernment full responsibility for all the
depredations committed by her. In-
deed, this conclusion seems, in effect,
to be conceded Ia Great Britain. At
all events, the United States conceive
! the proofs of responsible negligence
, in the matter to be so clear, that no
room remains for debate on the point,
and it should be taken for granted in
all future negotiations with Great
J Britain. 1t is impossible not
| to compare and contrast the
conduct OF the States generally as re-
CARDS Great Britain ON the occasion
! of the revolt of the British colonies,
! with that Of Great Britain as regards
, the insurrection ia the Southern
. States. No fleets were fitted out In
the ports of the Netherlands to prey
, on the commerce of Great Britain.
Only IN a single instance did Ameri-
! can cruisers have temporary harbor-
. age IN the year after the export OF mu-
G;tions of war from the Netherlands
: was forbidden By the States General,
: the more completely to falfil the duty
: of amity and neutrality toward Great
: Britain, but neYerthG less Great Bri-
. tain treated declaration Of neutral
/ ity by the States and the observance
| OF that declaration as sufficient cause
of war against the Netherlan DIS, prior
| ! to which the British Government
r continually complained to occasional
supplies derived By the Colonies from
+ Island st. Eustis How light Ia this
respect would have been the hurthens
!. | of the United States during the late
n insurrection If British aid had been
I confined to a contraband trade be
3 tween the insurgents and the port oil
. Nassau. Not such is the complaint
i of the United States against Great
! Britain. We complain that the in
: surrection In the Southern States, il
. it did not exist, was continued and
e obtained its enduring vitality by
e means of the resources it drew from
4 Great Britain. We complain that, by
! reason Of the imperfect discharge oi
4 its neutral duties on the part or the
:. Queens Government, Great Britain
d became the military, naval, and imam
: cial basis of the insurgents warfare