The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1871-07-11
Ehct Alabama Treaty.

A full report Of the debate in the
House of Lords, upon the motion ot
Earl Russell in regard to the recent
Treaty, is at last before us, and it con.
tains many interesting and important
revelations, which were entirely ignored
in the cable dispatches. There are sew.
eral striking condolences, between the
views expressed in these columns, as to
The Interpretation that would be placed
upon the "new rules" by the British
Government, and the declarations OF
Earl Granville, speaking in his official
and authoritive capacity. In fact, if
that distinguished Peer had written some
Of the editorials on this subject in The
Patriot, he could not have more exactly
expressed the opinions which he uttered
in Parliament fortnight ago.
On the 23d of May, we had occasion
to comment upon letter of the Hon.
Reverdy Johnson, in which he defended
the Treaty with great zeal, and sought
to demonstrate the advantage of the
'new rules" to American claimants
Our language was quite explicit, as may
be seen by the following extract on this
particular point:
We take leave to say, that the ''new
rules upon which Mr.. johnson lays
so much stress, impose no obligation on
the arbitrators to accept his theory
The real point upon which the whole
case Of damages will turn, is, did the
British Government exercise "due dill.
gence" in striving to prevent the depar-
ture of the Alabama, after having been
warned by our Minister? Mr.. johnson
knows very well that Lord John Russell
has stated and reiterated, in the mos,
solemn forms of official responsibility
that all possible diligence was exercised
and that particular cause, over which
the Government had no control, inter
vencd to prevent the arrest Of the Ala
bama.
This seemed to US to be a logical con
clusion from the terms of the Treaty
fortified by the diplomatic correspon
dence concerning the Alabama claims
from which there could be no escape
That this is the view of the British
Government can no longer be doubted
except by those who, after being dupeG
by the superior skill of their British
adversaries; have sought to impose theil
own imbecility upon the public. as :
proof of diplomatic success. Here i:
the answer of Earl Granville, the Brit
ish Minister Of Foreign Affairs, to al
such feeble sophistry, and in complete
confirmation of our position:
The noble Earl (Russell) had object
ed to the wording of these rules, be
cause he said that they rendered US liza
bic for the escape of vessels, whose rea
character we had no reason to suspect
That, however, was not so; for thes
rules only provided that countr,
should be liable when the Government
did not use 'due diligence to preyen
the sailing of any vessel which Their
was reasonable grounds to believe
was intended to cruise against friend
ly Power. These words would certain
ly protect us against any liability on &C
count of the escape of the vessels un
der the circumstances referred to by tn
noble Earl; and the truth was, that tn
terms of the present reference woult
confer upon us advantages, which W
should not have derived from any 9th
er, which had been heretofore proposed
1t is thus seen that the precise inter
pretation of the Treaty on the British
side, which we anticipated, has been lit
orally verified in every respect, and that
too, before Gen. Schenck, to whose pres
ence in the House of Lords Earl Gran
vile pointedly alluded, as if for the ex
press purpose of giving emphasis to hi
statements. And we now express th'
belief, with equal confidence, that thi
construction will be maintained by th'
Board of Arbitrators at Geneva.
| Upon the same occasion, Lord JOIN
Russell, took the opportunity to say, il
reference to the Alabama, what he hac
repeatedly said in his correspondent
with Mr.. Adams:
that he,as Foreign Secretary, had uset
due diligence in arresting her, (the Ala
bama, after he had obtained sufficien
evidence of her real character, and tina
he was, therefore, not answerable for tn
Injury inflicted by her upon American
commerce.
Other disclosures were made in th,
course of this debate, which show hoy
correctly we estimated the benefits tha
would accrue to England from thi
Treaty, and the disadvantages to tn
United States, by the introduction of
ipolicy wholly at variance with all ou
cherished traditions Of neutral dutie
and rights. Now that the Treaty is rat
flied, the festivities are over, and there i
no reason for further deception, peopl
are beginning to discover the real char
acter of bargain into which the countr.
was betrayed by trucking and incom
petent Administration.