The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-05-08

precedentS acknowledged lJS responsibility |
for the escape of an unarmed vessel from an
English port but it has for some years been
willing to refer the issues of law and of fact
| to any properly qualified tribunal. The COM
missioners have, il seems, not only agreed to
a change in the law, but have given their re-
concentrations the form of declaratory
enactment. If the explanations of both Gov
ernmsnts were correct, the commissioners
were instructed not to settle the
dispute, but to discover some prac-
ticabls method by which it might
be settled. In coming to an
understanding on the law of the case, the
English Com missioners have anticipated the
functions of any body which might hereafter
be charged with the adjustment of the con-
troversy. It may be hoped that they have
not at the same time prejudged the question
of negligence. Even if they had authority
to alter or declare the law, it is impossible
that any change in maritime Jurisprudence
should affect the question of fact. For the
present it is but fair to repose in the mem
bers of the commission the confidence which
their characters deserve. If they miscarry
in their difficult enterprise it will be difficult
to find more capable successors.
If it is true that the commissioners have
agreed on the expedency of modifying the
rules of international law, the professional
caution of American and English jurists will
probably disappoint eager advocates of in
novation. Before the civil war American
text-writers and statesmen were habitually
solicitous to vindcate or extend the immuni-
ties of neutrals. Successive Presidents, dur
ing the long contest between Spain and the
South American colonies, consistently refused
to interfere with expeditions undistinguish-
able, in character from the escape and cruise of
the Alabama. The municipal law of the
United States, which authortatively expresses
| the American doctrine of international law, is
/ IL
ment Act. During the recent controversy
the Americans have shown with demonstra-
| tive force that no Government can excuse
! itself for a breach of international law by
urging its own inability to discharge its duty.
| Every independent State must be regarded as
a unit, and consequently it is fully RESPONSE
BILE for its own defective legislation. The
English Government was bound to exercise
| all the powers which it ought to have pos
sessed for the strict maintenance of neu-
trslity; but when the further question arose,
whether the law was in truth defective, the
comparison of the English and American
statutes became in the highest degree
relevant and instructive. At first sight
it might appear that it was safe
and easy to remove all cause
of offense to belligerents by more definite
domestic legislation; but although foreigners
may not be theoretically justified in relying
on the municipal laws of other States, statu-
tory prohibition is in practice considered an
admission of liability A Government which
declines to enforce its own laws against the
interference of its subjects in foreign quarrels
may be plausibly charged with indifference
or with negligence. In some cases practical
suspension of the Foreign Enlistment act has
been accompanied by avowed hostility to one
of two belligerents. The mission of the
Spanish Legion to assist the partisRns of
Queen Isabella would have been justly treated
as an act of war if the Carlists had been in a
position to resent the injury. If the Joint
Commission has arrived at any understand.
ing, both Governments will probably under
take to adapt their municipal legislation to
the new international code, by enactments
which should be as nearly as possible iden-
tical.
The reported arrangement carries the dis
pute beyond the stage at which it was left
by Lord Clarendon and Mr.. Reverdy John
son. The reference to commissioners or
arbitrators TO be appointed by sovereign
powers is greatly preferable to an inquiry by
Joint Commission; and perhaps it will be
prudent not to criticize too closely the selec-
tion of Russia as an umpire. When the
former treaty was settled in London the
English Government would have received
, without repugnance the assertion by any
ostensibly impartial tribunal of its liability
for the escape of the Alabama. The rude
: u0So Will WulCu ltb hllplo COhCcbnlOus were
, received would again, if it were re-
, peated, render a settlement impossible; but
sanguine believers in the pacific intentio MS
of the present Government of the United
, States may possibly have judged rightly. The
deposition of Mr.. Sumner has removed from
! power one spiteful enemy of England; and
! il is not certain that his triumphant rivals
will adopt his policy. General Grant ha:
already secured his nomination as the Repub-
a liean candidate for the Presidential election
: of 1872. Although he was supposed to be
, deficient in political adroitness, he judged
! accurately that in the approaching contest b,
I would be indispensable to his party. The
4 Republican managers will not allow an,
Q lingering regard for Mr.. Sumner to interfer,
q with the union which can alone give then
. the victory. The Presidents suggestion tina
6 the Joint Commission should be instructed t.
70 devise a mode of settlement of the Alabam
= dispute, although it may have been incon
a sistent with the unfriendly tone of his mes
sage to Congress, would be applicable if b
" was still resolved to keep the quarrel open
His sincerity was additionally proved by tn
- selection of some of the most eminent law
n yers in the United States as members of tn
a commission, nor can it be doubted that th
10 Executive Government will use all its inhu
,ss ence to procure the assent of th
"a Senate to any arrangement whic
# may be recommended by tn
a. representatives of the two powers. tn
a. Senate itself must fully understand that
IS repetition of the vote against Mr.. Reverb
10 Johnson's treaty would be political blundel
" A constitution which renders negotiatio
e difficult or impossible is a source of weakness
At Englishmen will on their side acquiesc'
1