The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1871-05-29
Another Triumph for British
Diplomacy.
Circumstances Under Which the Com
mission Was Created.
Grave Blunders Of the American
Commissioners.
WASHINGTON, May %, 1871.

lngI0n on the statute books-is presented IN the pro-
tocol OF the proceedings Of the joint High Commits
sion as plan OF adjustment, adopted as a compro-
mise so as TO reach settlement OF the outstanding
questions between the United States and Great
Britain.
POPULAR IDEA or TIE OBJECT OF THE COMMISSION.
Public opinion In the United States, when the es-
tablshment OF the Joint High Commission was an
nounced, seemed to take 1t for granted that 1t was
mere formal assemblage to acknowledge the claims
OF the United States anl ply Them The wish was
father to the thought. Even the selection OF tho
English arbitrators men distinguished for their
peculiar familiarity with the so-caed Alabama
question ana their marked opposition to our pre-
sentaiion OF the case did not tend, as 1t should
have done, to bring the public mind down from its
poetic heights to the sober realities OF the facts.
Hence 1t Is that the treaty, to q certain extent
disappoints almost every one, and that four
| 1fths OF the Senate accepted 1t more because 1t
was an accomplished fact than because they re.
garded its provisions in themselves with any par
tlcular favor. The ground taken by Earl de Grey
ana his colleagues was that they were here upon
tine suggestion and invitation OF the American
government. England simply responded, as
she had always expressed her willingness
to do, to any proposition from the United States
asking her 10 resume the consideration OF the Ala
bama question. England had suggested commits
sion to arrange the questions between Canada ana
the United States. That was ALL she had repeat
edly declared that SO far as the Alabama matter
was concerned she could not and would not attempt
to reopen IT, after the rejection Of the Johnson CLAIR
endon Convention, unless the United States invited
IT, Mr. Fish, IN his letter OF the Goth OF January last
to Sir Edward Thornton, gave tho invitation. and
1t was at once accepted by England. 1t Is known
Sir Edward Thorntons skill or good fortune
In thus inducing Mr. Fish to ask that the
Alabama question should be reOpened was
considered great diplomatic coup, and as such
win, In oil probability give him the peerage and
promotion TO an embassy.
THE ALABAMA QUEsTIoN-AMERICAN DEMANDS
BRITISH REFUSAL.
These being the circumstances under which the
Commission was created, 1t did not surprise public
men to learn from the protocols that when the
American Commissioners presented their grievances
they were met by general denial. These grievances
consisted CT a statement of the wrongs and injuries
which Great Britain had inflicted upon the people
and commerce OF the United States by her course
and conduct during civil war and the career OF
the Alabama ana the other Anglo Confederate ves-
sells. Instead Of being prepared to acknowledge
that Great Britain had failed IN any Of her duties
towards the United States, imposed by international
law, the English commissioners held that she had done
her whole duty and was not responsible IN any way
sels They were directed by their government to
to refer the question to arbitration. rad been
agreed to In the Johnson Clarendon treaty, but
| nothing more This the American Commissioners
declined &c 40 unless the principles which should
govern the arbitrator in the consideration OF the
| facts should be agreed to.
COMPROMISE AGREED UPON.
After heightened discussion the rules were &C.
cepted IS drawn no by the American Commission.
81 En~
lish side. The rules arc that neutral government
Is bound:--
ing or equpping jurisdiction, Of any
nas % w 70
IL Of IKE ny yss pr
ns sn h sS sssr specially e.p
snaNot to permit or suffer either segerent TO make
augmentation Of military supplies Of the recruitment
exercise due diligence in IT, Sy1 ports
vent any vioacno the foresona obligations duties
being s0nd, q this m r. Nm that aGss o6fa
between the two countries.
EXPLANATORY PROTEST OF ENGLAND.
But the treaty declares, in explanation OF the
British Interpretation OF these rules, that her
Britannia Majesty has commanded her High Com
mlssioners and PlenipotentlareS TO declare that
Her Macs'ys government cannot assent to the fore
s as arn q q. en &, e s
toned in article one arose. but that her Britannia Macsys
ia order .vinee e desire Of .!renshennS
making provision for the future agrees that
issys had uadsr!assn e act upon the prIn
parties agree to observe these rules between
time Powers and to invite then, to accedc to Them
Some OF the ablest lawyers In the Senate hold
that this explanatory paragraph relieves Eng.
land of oil retroactive responsibility in the appca-
ton OF the rules so far as the Alabama and still
more the other Confederate vessels are concerned.
England declares in the treaty that the principles
of international law as laid down in the rules were
not in force when the Alabama claims arose, but
that her Majesty's government agrees that the arb
traitors shall assume that her Majcsty's government
mad undertaken to &C upon the principles thus set
forth. The only point by which the British
government can be held under the rules responsible
for the escape OF the Alabama is If 1T can be shown
due diligence was not used TO prevent 1t. England
contends she did use due diligence and she offered
IN the John Clarendon treaty to submit the oues
ton OF due diligence and responsibility to an arb
traitor, just as she mas done in this treaty.
ENTANGLISG ALLIANCES.
But the great objection which many Senators had
to the adoption OF these rules In treaty stipulation
looks beyond any mere question OF Aabamas or
payment oil claims. Several democratic Senator'S took
tie ground that 10 involved new departure In the
attitude which the United states had always hereto
commencement OF our national history the present
time cniangling alliances with foreign governments
hau been deprecated. Tne neutrality enactmentS OF
the United states. ike the neutrality laws OF all
countries, were regarded as municipal regulations,
made IN the interests OF nigh ana honorable con-
sideraion towards counties with which we
are at peace, but not as the result "
/ any coerclve arrangements from outside
limits. In the presentation OF the Alabama
claims the United states neld TO the moral
obligation which rendered England liable Tor DANA
ges Indicted upon us and to tine plea Of Lord John
Russell that Engand's neutrality laws were insufi-
Gent TO warrant the detention Of the Alabama and
the other confederate pirates. Neither Mr.. Adams
nor Mr.. Seward condescended TO accept 1t as
sufficient They SAID, In substance eve
/ base our claim upon natural laws OF
right and comfy between friendly, and, at all
events, neutral nations, and II your municipal laws
are insufficient 10 enable you 10 do what is morally
right your Parliament Is sitting and you supply
the defects In your law at Once.o There Is little
doubt but that the democratic party Will endeavor
to make point upon this view OF the case and hold
that the ADMINISTRATION py It's binding itself TO GER
tain rules OF law outside the control or Congress,
has committed grave biunuer. This, IL VIII be
seen, does not touch the merits oil the Alabama
question:; but the broader one OF unnecessary en-
tangllng alliances with foreign States.