The New York herald., 1871-10-17


that the right or his neutral territory 10 protect
pirates had been Invaded by our gallant navy, anu
ton then IN ard OF the rebellion Perhaps that makes
HIM AL The better arbitrator on like acts oi England
WHO SUNK THE FroarpA7
In compliance with His Maest, - peremptory de-
manj an order for the return OF the Florida was
gwen, ana she would have again been let loose
upon our commerce, but luckily she was In James
River when the nr Ter came, within The Department
Oi Virginia ana North Carolina. the coinniander Of
winch now addresses you, 80 tnat he has knowledge
oil fact OF wnic he SPEAKS: an,l, uortunat ~ for
the cOnedefdcy, b,,. happily ior our commerce. The
Florida colllded as she lay at anchor with an army
transport and sunk III SIX fathoms Of water where
she has tam harmless ever since; anu the person
now addressing You, as counsel ior Commodore Col
Inns and his crew. Is endeavoring to recover her
val1e IN prize Tor me daring, gallant aad patriotic
But what s,all be said II the treaty Is SO loosely
framed after all, that Great Britain has let to her.
BY ITS proyisons valid defence TO all our claims
for the AaDana Outra9es, or at least one exceed
ingly dihcuit TO answer What Is TO be done or SAID
II our Commissioners on the Joint iI!gn Commission
have not only wholly Jailed TO get an acknowledge
ment OF liability Tor our claims, Dut by an express
provision have lett the door open TO u defence by
Great Britain wnich may be wcil urged as sounding
IN equity and djusticef 1t IA to be remembered that
our claim for damages Tor the depredatOns must be
primarily upon Inc reDe,s who destroyed our ves-
sells anu that on England is a secondary one be-
OF doing the acts OF which we compain. The wrongs
were as,aay innieted by our Southern brethren Of
us accessory only. Therefore may not Bliialn well
urge before the arbitration that as
. TIE UNIFIED STAHE5 HAVE CONDONED THE
OFFENCES
OF the southern States committed during the war
nave taken them back as an integral part OF the
government OF the nation, and as the money paid
Tor the depredations Of the Alabama WIN go inLo tne
Treasury OF the United states Tor tile Joint benefit or
ali the citZens ol the United States as well
Admiral Semmes VINO commanded the Alabama al
Admiral Winsow and Ofcers ana crew OF tue
Kearsarge that sunk ner-it is unjust ana lneqnltabe
to call upon England 10 pay money 10: The depreda-
tions Of the Alabama tor the benefit III part, OF the
very men aud States who did the acts, and who are
/ a "A
In other words, in Jusiice and equity accessory
canIot pe called upon 70 pay ms principal for the
robbery. Yet In The protocols 0f the Comms-
sioners, in the discussions IN the Senate, as
they permitted to come to tie puulic ear, not
word Of all THIS vital question OF defence by Eng
land, cunningly planned and SO arrisiically pro-
vdcd by the British commissioners, has been said.
PAYMENT or CLAIMS OF BRITISH sUBJEuTs
! We have agreed, by the tweiltn article OF the
treaty. 10 pay all the claims OF British SUBJECTS Tor
losses suffered ~ the nands OF the United states
government during tue war th1t may be determined
give decree, to be appointed jointly Dy Great Britain
aud the United States. and In their failure by the
reprcseatanye OF the kn- OF Spain. what is the
Have lney ever been statcds OF what 90 they con-
Observe tic difference IN the statement OF the two
classes OF claims. When Our claims OF any magnl.
tUdc are madc upon England they are specified as
known under the head OF Alabama Clains.n When
the Engiish Gains are provided Tor as against US,
there Is not even generic specification, but are all
True, il is well argued that this coun,ry is not
liable or damages done in the war to the persons
aud property OF neutral foreign resi- lent here any
more than 10 our own citizens. Granted. But this
guvel nnlent, by appointing
THE SOUTHERN CLAIMS COMMISSION,
has admitted is liollity lOr ali the property taken
and used by the armies OF the United States ia the
course OF its military opera ions, belonging TO its
loyal citizens. Every subject of treat Britain being
a nen,ra must pc taken TO nave been loyal, under
the provisions OF this treaty, unless some overt act
Ii shown ana stands, therefore, upon the ground OF
the most loyal citizen OF the United States and for
every dollar o his property taken used OF injured
person tie Uned states by this treaty Is made re-
sponsiDlc Wnat that amount may be depends upon
the advocacy OF the English Commissioner and the
conscience Vi the representative vi the King or
Spain.
have already called attention to the fact that
there Is no prohibition against British claims az
holders 0l the Confederate loan. snail probably be
answered that there was no need OF such II prohibi-
too because the Confederate DEBT was neither an
'act done nor committed against British subject py
the United Siatc5.h True, tut cannot forget, how
ever that this Confederate loan was specially secured
by pledge Of the COTTON owned by the Confederate
government placed IN the hanus OF agents as Sc
as fun pledge IN tue eye OF municipal law as be.
tween individuals as could be well stated. There
fore 1t would seem TO me quite clear that all such
Confederate cotton so pledged became The quaIlied
property OF the holder, OF the loan for whose benefit
il was held rs a pledge. Indeed, remember that
portions oi that very cotton were shipped and sold
to pay The interest as long as the coniederacy had
Now IL 1t not historically true that the United
States TOOK ana DESTROYED many millions OF TINS
cotton and put some forty million dollars more into
the Treasury realized from It's salel DID we not
claim this property as SUCCESSORS to The Confederate
States captured oy us IN the war; Butwa lt uncer
neutrlls who had loaned their money upon IL and
held il 10y their agents and seivantsS Although
We have CONSTITUTIONAL provision against the pai-
ment OF the Confederate debt, we have constitu-
o3al provision against pay ment for the cotton that
we nave destroyed or taken and sold belonging to
British subjects, which have agreed 10 pay by the
solemn PROVISIONS Of treaty which are IN them
selves the supreme law Of the land. Perhaps the
Confederate raid upon the ST Adams Bank during
the war would come more nearly under this class
that the government OF Canada connived ut anu
became parties TO that raid IT seems dicut TO see
how such claim can be validated. There is still
ANOTHER LARGE CLASS OF CLAIMS
which may come in under the provisions OF this treaty
and certainly will be pushed, and that is for rcstitl
ton Of the blockade runners captured during the
war. lt has been insisted and is still insisted ny
the British owners that all these captures ille
gal, BECAUSE among other reasons, by the procla-
mation OF the blockade OF President Lincoln il is
distinctly ordered that our naval vessels warn or
the merchant vessels coming to Southern port the
lrs time they are found within the inhibited waters
and that capture should only be made for the second
OFFENCE. But soon 50 % these warning warnings were omitted.
vessel was found to enter blockadcd port. Again,
it win be claimed that we nave insisted, and 40
still insist, that we never have accorded Delligerent
rights to the C0niederate5 at sea, because they
had neither ports nor navy. This Is one OF
Massachusetts in his speech against a former
treaty. put his with all his strength, and made
the recognition by England OF the belllgerent rights
OF The Con;ederates at sea, when We had accorded
them none, distinctive and most formidable
ground OF liability TO US for all wrongs done TO US
hy the Alaoama--a view, by The way, which mas
been wholly ignored and repudiated by this treaty
yet the newspapers said that the wnoe country
adopted TINS view. The British lawyers say, he it
so; assume that there 10 state or belligerency
al sea, how lnea do you MAINTAIN
TIE LEGALITY OF A BLOCKADE
which could only be set up because . state OF bel
ligerency on the watcrsa And II there Is anything
In this doctrine that state or beIligerency may
ist between the parent State ana It's revotcd SUBJ
jects on the land and yet there be no state OF bell
ligerency at sea, that we might have been Justi-
ned in hanging Confederate sailors as pirates-as
essayed TO 10 but were prevented by threats OF re-
taiiation-then all our prize adjudications fall
to the gt0und, and we are accountable for
the vessels captured before Court OF ArDi.
tratiOn 10 be presided over Dy the representative
OF the King OF spain, who has subjects with
like claims acainst us. Remember, again, that TINS
question is not 10 be determined by us with our
patrlotic emotions and ideas OF international law