The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1871-05-01

common sense and sound morality. II would be
Impossible fairly TO crtlcse the rule adopted by the
Commission until Its precise terms are before Us.
Apparently 1t adopts the Just view that though
ship OF war may be exported to a beligerent as an
out in a condition to make War withour
first entering the port OF the Power to which It IL
sold. The objection that as IN the case OF the Ala
ment IN Liverpool, and may actually receive It IN the
Azores, is very little to the point. It only shows
that the responsibility was divided between
two neutral Powers Instead or being confined TO one.
The plea that the vessel was not armed In an Eng
lisn port and that It was not built IN Portuguese
one Is like the defence OF the conederates tried for
shee steallng, one OF whom truly urged that he had
not taken tue ANIMAL while the other insisted that
The London Standard thus discourses on the
sub)ect:-"We can have no doubt that 1t Is for the
should prevent their ports being made the bases OF
hostile expeditions undertaken In the interest OF
one belllgerent against another II, however, the
principle s established the actual investigation OF
the several Alabama claims is to be RENTED to a
%, nve 10 meet az nj
Queen and one by, President Grant, while
the Emperor of Brazil, the President Of the Swiss
Confederation and the King OF Italy Will be invited
TO nominate member apiece. 1t is added that no
decision win be binding on either party unless
agreed TO by one Of the Commissioners representing
them-a provision somewhat unintelligbe, unless
1t refers to the extremely unlikely contingency OF
the three nominees of the friendly Powers being
the Queen and the President on the other
In any case, II the Commissioners thus ap.
pointed are unable to decide any claim within
two years 1t IS to be referred to q new board
Of three. appointed severally by the Queen the
PRESIDENT ana the Emperor OF Russia, whose uecl-
sion VIII be final There thus seems II fair chance
that within a reasonably short time this trouble
some Qre'tion Will he dennitivey settled. The tenn
per Of Senate is, perhaps, the most doubtful ele-
ment l.. the case. II, as we may confidently
ners Of 0 the oW arSia"s sa ' accept s
TINS duty, the Commission, constituted OF
their nominees and the nominees Of the two
principals, Will be strong enough TO construe
the new rule Of international law SO far as may be
necessary for Its application TO the Alabama case.
They will have the statute before them, and as
Judge ana jury, will find verdict. Ii 1t should be
against us, we must bow to their decision; but We
shall go into the arbitration with good heart. We
have lar grounds for confidence that the hone ty OF
our attempt to carry out the rule, though 1t was Mt
| the time q sef-mposed Obligation and not matter
OF international right VIII be made 80 apparent as
| to entitle us to an acqutta."
| The London Teiegrdpn contends that 'the liability
| simple question what the law was at the time;
| morally, because America had certainly taken large
advantage OF lis laxlty and had no right to CON-
| plain If we did the same. Granted that the law
was bad; that IL good reason for altering 1t IN the
future, but no reason for assuming It to have been
the very language In which the new rule Is prOmul
| gated assumes that 1t Is new. The Com.
| mission are In fact applying TO an international
offence that winch is considered In municipal legs-
laon 10 be the height OF nJustice-an ec post Jdco
would not agree to the change any otner terms;
that she had suffered by the old law, and II she
were not to be compensated for her suffering would
prefer to retain II with view oil avenging her.
SELF on US. But, Ter many reasons, we cannot think
| that America could have permanently maintained
such position. IL would be too mean and DIS
credifable for high-splred peop,e; and It would
be unjust in fact and IN history, for the Americans
had been the first, the most frequent ana the
audacious offenders against the new principle and
In sending out a score OF Alabamas we should only
have reqlted their treatment OF ourselves, OF
Portugal and OF SPAN IN bygone times. AS we re-
fused TO measure our present duties by their past
errors, and stopped the Alexandra and the rams,
though American courts had constantly affirmed the
Legality of similar enterprises against ourselves and
against other European states, so we might ialIly
have asked America to establish Just law for the
future, and leave che past to be tried by the
law OF the past. The just and honest course,
as Americans themselves must feel, would have
been to refer the Alabama claims TO arbitration on
the express understanding that they should be tried
by the actual law OF natlOns ana 30 clear was our
case on that ground that IL the understanding had
once been TO that liability should be mea
sured soely hy public law, we should not have
scruped 10 refer the subject to tribunal composed
Sumner aud MS colleagues TO the then PRESIDENT
threw out the Johnson Clarendon convention, and
forced the federal government to devise another ana
less creditaDe solution and he present Is perhaps
as good as might be expected
The Idu MAJ Gazette concludes an article "a fol-
lows-"There Is some difficulty, the Times
points out IN seeing how the rule established by the
High Commission is applcab TO the Alabama. Tho
rule Is that a neutral Ia responsible for deprcda-
| tons committed on friendly Power by u vessel
Alabama does not appear to come under this rule:
for 1t was no itred out, II fitted out means supplied
| With It's armament; nor was 1t manned, II that
means supplied with It's fighting crew, In an Eng
| lsh port. However, We refrain from further obser
Walton that point, which IS at present uncertain.
IL Is anos: pity that we receive incomplete or
doubtful news on such important matters these,
even though II goes very near the exact TRUTH