The Idaho world. [volume] (Idaho City, Idaho Territory) 1864-1918, 1869-06-17
WORLD.
THE UNITED STATES AND ENGLAND.

THE UNITED STATES AND EN0AANo'
The London Times of May 18th contains the
following important leading article, with refer
ence to the character of the present attitude
Of the United States towards Great Britain
The Times says:
At a moment when the relations between
Great Britain and America are assuming
troublesome complexion, the accidental course
of common law suit has placed one OF the
two Governments in position 80 strange as TO
no hardly imaginable. The United States ac-
cnse us of having grievously wronged them by
assuming q state of war where none existed,
and 80 raising body of ordinary insurgents, to
the level of an actual government with being
arent rights. At this very moment, however,
an action is pending in the Court of Queens
Ranch in which the United States claim to re-
cover certain property as successors 10 the
Confederate States, and in which, therefore,
thew are compelled not only to admit, but to
establish the pretensions of that very Govern
ment whose authority they would otherwise
repudiate and decry. During the war, Sir Pc
ter TAFT, an army clothier in this country, re-
ceived large quantity of cloth from the Con-
federate Government, to be made up into uni.
forms. Before the contract, however, could
be completed or the goods delivered, the con-
test came to an end and now the american
Government as heir of the contracting UoV-
eminent, is sueipg the contractor Tor the value
of the material supplied to him. For the mere
plea itself there appears to be precedehts; put
the difficulty is this: that the United States can
only sue as representatives OF the Confederate
States, and that in maintaining their SUIT they
are necessarily driven not only to admit, Dut 10
for nj
which. when advanced by our own Govern
ment, they have fercely impugned. Of course,
the defendant is fully aware of this weakness
in the case of his adversaries, and presses his
advantage to the utmost-indeed, beyond the
limits considered allowable by the court.
The argument took the form of q discussion
on certain "lnterrogatOries in num-
ber-which the defendant claimed to admins
ter TO the plaintiffs He desires to ask his OPP
ponents who they are, and in what capacity
they are sueing him; what was the original
Constitution of the Federal Union before the
war, and what the rights retained under that
instrument by the several States of the tede
ration; whether certain States did not assert
their right to leave the Union and establish an
independent COnfederacy; whether this right
was not actually exercised, and whether de
fdcto Government of the Confederate States OF
America did not consequently arise! After
these questions have ben answered, the defend
ant desires to know whether the old Union did
not make war upon the new Contederacy and
prosecute this war for q certain period, and,
finally. claims to be told how long this state OF
war continued, and when it came to an end
in other words, at what period the two bellIg
eren Governments were superseded by single
conquering Government inherlting all the rights
of the vanqulshed power. We need not say
how extremely embarrassing such queries
would be likely to prove. The United States
Government would, in fact, be subjected TO
critical crOss-examinatiOn under most perplex-
ing circumstances, for while, as plaintiffs In the
action, it would be their interest to make out
the best case possible for the Confederate au-
thorities, every argument and every piece of
evidence produced for that purpose would tell
directly against their own allegations in the
more important matter of the Alabama claims
No evidence of the dilemma thus created
could be more extraordinary than the first step
in the proceedings as yesterday reported. The
United States sue Sir Peter TAFT as represen-
tatves of the Confederate States, and in order
to secure themselves a standing ground, they
are compelled to assert that the Confederate
States were q de fdctO Government. This as
sertion the defendant calls upon them to prove
and then the plaintiffs, for the purposes of
proof, actually put in that very proclamation OF
which in other negotiations they
have 80 strongly denounced. When this proc
lamation was issued there was, as they have
commended, no war, and yet they
now appeal to it as evidence of the war. Mr..
Mellish made the best he could of the incOnsis-
tency Though the United States" he said
object to the proclamation of neutrality, con-
tanned in Earl Russell's letter of January, 1862,
yet they not only admitted but contended that
in that court such document must be taken as
conclusive" On this argument the Lord Chief
Justice promptly observed that the court would
the Queens proclamation, and would
take the fact as there stated. cay" retorted
the defendants counsel, but the United States
will not; and ought we to be bound by it while
they are not so! This much-debated procla-
nation, therefore, is relied upon by the Amer
lean Government in a civil suit as evidence of
the existence of war and of state of bel
ligerency, while in other negotiations it is con-
demned as having been without warrant in
fact, for that state of war and belligerency
which it protested to recognize. Precisely the
same difficulty ran through the whole of the
case; for, while the United States refused to
the authority of the Confederate
States agents, they were preferring claim
which, except on the supposition that these
agents had good authority, could not be sus-
tanned.
Mr.. Melish, on behalf of the Government
objected with some reason to the length to
which the interrOgatOries had been carried II