The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1870-11-12
England and tho Alabama clnr,s


The English feel very uneasy about the
Alabama claims. The dgnied and indepen-
dent attitude which the government of the
United States has go persistenily maintain ID
upon that important question ought to have
convinced the British government long AFRO
that settled point Of our national policy is to
nave ample reparation for the injuries inflicted
on CIR commerce and our cause through the
action and influence of England during the
American civil war. Whether the account be
settled next year or within the next decade, or
not, Englishmen may as well understand at
once what Americans have long known full
well, and that is that any administration at
Washington, whether democratic or republic
can, that would attempt to depart from tho
carefully considered popular conviction on the
Alabama question would be speedily and sue
cessfully impeached, and that no Congress
representing the popular will would ratify any
treaty that did not provide at least full in
dcmnity for the private property destroyed on
the high seas by armed vessels starting from
British ports to prey upon the commerce Of
country with which Great Britain, under
solemn stipulations, was at peace.
The English press keeps up an interminabc
talk about this question, which has been
already so thoroughly discussed. Our de-
spatches state that the London Times of We'd
nesday morning revives the subject Of the
Alabama negotiations, and endeavors to de-
monstrate that England had made great con-
cessions and could make no more. II says
the Clarendon treaty "abounded in conces-
sions," that many Englishmen thought 'sihe
genial, exuberant johnson had ,outwtted
Clarendon" and that the treaty yielded too
much" The Times ignorantly assumes that
'the rejection Of the treaty by the United
States Senate was due to political irritability,"
and asserts that ENGLAND now stands free of
all blame" 1t is useless for the Times or any
other English organ to persist in endeavoring
to mislead the British public on so vital
question as the Alabama claims. The Times
was wrong from the first in its reports and
comments concerning the rebellion, and it is
equally in error in the present instance. The
rejection Of the treaty by the Senate was not
due to political irritabity, but was in accord
ance with the sober judgment and universal
sentiment Of the American people, who fully
understand the Alabama question England
will not stand acquitted Of all blame by tue
Times saying SO; the American people have
something to say upon that point. We repeat,
the mind of the nation is IN de up upon the
Alabama question. General Grant does net
appear to be in any haste just now to press
the issue; but when the proper time arrives
we feel assured that he will find some way of
satisfying England that she must make more
concessions than those proposed in the Claran-
don-Johnson treaty, and that if ample apology
and complete indemnity are not accorded
through a treaty we shall find some other
means of obtaining satisfaction for the I'M
friendly action which at once destroyed SO
much private property aud swept our COM
merce from the sea.