New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1871-03-21
4 vIEw or THE ALABAMA CASE.

Notwithstanding the persistency OF the Brit
ish press in reminding lis that England has
not acknowledged her responsibility for the
Alabama bill, and will not do so until an ar
bitrator decides against her, it is clear that the
payment of the claims in some form is regarded
"a a foregone conclusion. A correspondent Of
The PaH Mall Gd;ette, in letter which we re-
print this morning, raises the question whether
it will be possible, suppOsing liability admit
ted, 10 find anybody who has suffered distinct
and compuable damage. The property de-
stroycd by the Alabama, though covered by
the American flag, was the property of indi-
viduals of various nations A large part of it
belonged to British subjects, and not to Ameri-
cans at all Moreover, it was insured, and the
loss therefore fell upon the underwriters. But
the risk of loss ia one of the ordinary c0nd-
tions of the business Of insurance, and n pre-
MUM is charged propOrtiOnate to the probable
chance against the insurer. Can the under
writer, after cxacting his premium, claim that
his losses shall be repaidi Can the shipper
who has already recovered his insurance ask
TO be reimbursed a second time for the loss Of
the same goods
These considerations are not new in our own
country, but they have not been so frankly
admitted heretofore in England. TO the writer
in The Gazette they apparently prove that the
Alabama did 10 damage at all, her plumber
came out of nolOdys pocket, and the ships
she burnt were nobody's loss. But they really
prove that the losses were national far more
than individual losses, and that our view Of
The character of the claims and the extent of
reparatiOn justly due us is the only one upon
which the matter Can be fairly settled. II is
very tue that the adjustment of individual
claims is somewhat complex, and the losses
are more infinitely divided than the unreflcct-
ing public supposes British, and French, and
German shippers aud underwriters all suffered
from the depredatiOns of the Rebel cruisers,
and the people Of the United States at large
bore a heavy proportion of the damage In
the form of increased freight charges and
marine risks, which of course fell ultimately
upon the consumers of imported commodities,
and above all in the ruin of our commercial
navy, which was misfortune to the whole
country and to every household in it. But
how does this affect the liability of Great
Britain The Alabama claim Is not and can
not be a suit for damages brought by Amer
lean citizens against the Government OF Great
Britain. The whole argument OF the writer
i'm The Pal Nal Gazette sustains the Amer-
can principle, that the fitting out of Conted-
crate cruisers in British ports was an INJURY
TO us as a nation, and not merely wrong to
individual merchants which can be settled like
n bill for broken windows. The settlement
must be between two sovereign nations, not
between Queen Victoria and few ship-oUners,
and this is just the point which Mr.. Reyerdy
Johnsons treaty practically overlooked. Now it
seems that Englshmen are coming over TO our
view of the case. How the money is to be di-
vided is a matter for us to settle after we get
it, The damage was done to the United
States, and it is TO the United States that
Great Britain must hold herself responsible.