The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-01-13

THE AMERICAN SIDE OF THE CONTROVERSY
FROM AN ENGLISH POINT OF vIEw--AN M
PoBTANT PAPER By LORD HOBART.
In the January number of MGcniRGn's
Magasine is an important paper on the Ala
bama claims, from the pen of Lord Hobart,
which is well worthy the attention of Ameri-
can readers. After giving q review Of the
origin Of the controversy between the United
States and England, and the negotiations
carried on at the British Court by Messrs.
Adams, johnson, and Motley, Lord Hobart
Says
Such being the present position, what is
the future fate of this question? 1t seems i'm
possible not to admit that nation which by
its Senate or in any other manner rejects a
convention, not only bearing the signature of
its accredited representative, but, after i'm
pOrtant alteration to suit the views of its
Government, approved by that Government,
places itself pro td7lto in disadvantageous
position before the world. Constitutional
peculiarities may deprive such engagements
of legal obligation, but cannot prevent them
from being considered by public opinion as
some kind of admission on the part of the
nation that equitable terms have been offered
to it. or, in other words, that demand for
further concession is exorbitant. The Bri-
tish Government, however, has with much
wisdom and moderation rsfrained from in
sisting strongly on this view of the case, and
contented itself with the requirement. the
Justice of which is sufficiently evident, that,
as regards any renewal of the negotiations,
the initiative should proceed from the Ameri-
can side. Assuming, then, at the instance of
the American Government the negotiations
will before long be resumed, it remains to in
quire on what their success or failure may be
expected to depend. Now, it is evident from
the statements of MIR. Fish and of Mr.. Mot
lev, and indeed would be sufficiently clear
without them, that though several reasons
are given for the rejection of the treaty by
the American Senate, the chief reason was
the fact that the claims for which
il provided a settlement were those of
individual losers by the depredations
of the Alabama and her kindred,
no mention at all being made of any claim
on the part of the Government of the United
States against that of Great Britain for
alleged breach of international duty. The
United States consider, wrongly or rightly,
that they have two distinct claims against us;
one for the reimbursement of American SUBJ
jects for the losses which they incurred on
this account; the other, to some kind of re-
dress, reparation, or dnsende honorable for
the important assistance which Gas they con-
tend) was given to the Rebel States by the
premature recognition of their ''belligerency,"
and the subsequent negligence of the
British Government to prevent some of its
disastrous consequences by OBTAINING the
Alabama and other vessels in the ports of
England. There can then be no doubt that,
whatever other amendments it may be desira-
BILE to make in the convention, if few words
could be added to it providing for reference
to an arbitrator of the questions, whether the
conduct of Great Britain during the war in
volved any breach of international obliga-
tion-whether, if it did, the error was of a
kind for which reparation could properly be
demanded-and if SO, what ought to be she
nature of that reparation-a settlement of
the dispute would at once ensue.
Now, if the state of affairs was simply this
that the United States had demanded of
our Government reparation of some kind for
the recognition of Southern belligerency, aud
our Government had replied by distinct re-
fusal-there would be very few Englishmen,
probably very few persons on this side of the
Atlantic, who would find fault with the reply.
That on the English side of the question
there are arguments of considerable force
Americans themselves would admit, and the
British Government has as good right to
hold that it is not responsible for that act
and its consequences, as the Government OF
the United States has to a contrary opinion.
But that is not the proposal
now under consideration. That proposal
is, that the qnestion-which of these two
opinions is right-should be referred to the
judgment of tribunal selected for its wis
dom and impartiality. Whatever else may be
thought of this proposition, it is one which
undoubtedly merits the most anxious con
sideration. A nation deliberately rejecting
such mode of settling differences for which
there is only one other settlement may have
valid reasons for doing SO, bat always sup
posing that a fitting arbitrator can be found
incurs very serious responsibility. In tn,
disputes of private life, which cannot be mad,
the subject of legal decision, it is commonly
inferred that the disputant who refuses t
submit the question to the friendly decision
in the wrong. This may very posi-
bly, not be the case; but there are
at all events, no unreasonabl,
grounds for the inference. 1t nigh
seem superfuous to repeat, but is too Otter
forgotten-that to make concessions on
mere demand is one thing; to make conces
sions which have been pronounced just by
duly appointed referee is quite another Ii
the first case there is implied either an ad
mission of the justice of the demand or de
ficiency of power or of courage to resist it
in the second, neither the admission nor th,
deficiency. From concession, the result O
arbitration. there can fairly be inferred
neither sense of culpability on the on,
hand, nor of weakness or fear on the other
In ordinary cases it is properly attributed &
Just appreciation of what is due to tn
general interests, which requires that tn
members of community shall abstain as ia
as possible from taking the law into thei
own hands. C
THE POSITION OF AMERICA REAsoKABLE.
Judging from past discussions, the objeS
tions which viii be taken on the part of Ene
nwn1k - .sn E~II