New-York tribune., 1871-01-03
THE ALABAMA CLAIMS.
A LIBERAL ENGLISH VIEW OF THE CON.
TROVERSY

Claims" by Lord Hobart (sOn OF the Earl OF Bucking
hamsiire After reviewing the history tho quarrel
Lord Hobart says:
such being the present position what IL the future fao
OF this question II seems impossible not admit tbai
nation which by it's senate any other manner re-
jecth convention not only bearing the signature Of i
alteration to suit tho views u is Goyefnmena T2a
approved by that Government, places tself pro
fdnto IN disadvanagcOus position before The world
Constitutional peeulartes may deprive such engage
ments OF legal Obligation but cannot prevent them irom
mission on the part Of tie nation that equitable term,
have been offered TO g. or In other words that dema
for further concession IL exOrbitant The British Gov.
ernment however has with much wisdom and modera-
case aud contentcd itself with the requirement. tho jas
tice OF which Is sufficiently evident that, regards any
renewal OF the negoaons the initiative should proceed
from the American side. Assuming then, that AT the
stance Of tue American Government the negotiations
will before long be resumed; 1t remains 10 inquire
what their failure may De expected depend
Now 1t is evident from the statements Of Mr. Fish
Mr Motley, and indeed would be sufficiently clear with
out hem that though several reasons are given for the
rejection OF the treaty BY the American senate, the chief
reason was the TACT that the claims Tor winch provided
settlement were those OF individual losers by tho
depredations Of the Alabama and her kindred, men
ton at all being made OF any claim on me part OF the
Government OF the United States against that Of Great
Britain for alleged breach OF international duty The
United states consider. wrongly or rightly that they
have two distinct claims against Us one FOR the rin
they Incurred on TINS account the other 10
some kind Of redress reparaon or dnende honorabe
for the important assistance which aS hey cOntend was
given TO the Rebel states by the premature recognonOf
their "beigerency" and the subsequent negligence ~
consequences by detaihng the Alabama and other
in thu ports of England. There then be no doubt
make In the Convention, II few words could be added
TO providing for reference to an arbitrator OF the quc
tiOns whether the conduct OF Great Britain during no
war involved any breach OF international Obligation
whether, II IL did. the error was OF kind for which r.
paratiOn could properly be dcmauded-and II what
be tho nature OF that reparatiOn-a settlement
OF the dispute would at once ensue.
Now il the state OF affairs was simply ths-that tho
United states had demanded OF our Government repar
ton of kind for the recognition OF southern boi-
refusa-there would be very few Englishmen probably
very few persons oil this side of the Atlantic, who would
find fault with the reply. That on the English sd ~
the question there arguments OF cOnsldeTabe force
Americans themselves would admit and the British
Government has good right 10 hold that II T. not
spOnsDe for that act ana It's consequence, as he Gov
ernment OF the United States has to contrary opinion
Bat that Is not the proposal now under
The proposal Is, that the queston-which o h,se tNg
opinions Is righ-shoud DE referred 10 the JuuSIttW
tribunal selected for its wisdom ana Hnpartiahty
Whatever else may be thought OF TINS proposition, u
one which undoubtedly merits the most anxious con
sideratiOn nation deliberately rejecting such mode
of settling differences for which theIe Is only one other
settlement, may have yalld reason. Tor uo.hs
so, but always supposing that htuhg Sin
traitor be found ncurs very serious responsibility
In the disputes of private hie which SaIl0l DC n 90. 80
subject of legal decision, 1t Is commonly inferred il e
friendly decision OF third person, the dputant "o
the wrong. This may very possibly not DE the td.'
but there are, at all events, no unreasOaDe sOuhu' m
the inference It might supeT-uOus 60 repeat uut
Is TOO often forgotten-that to make concessions ON
have been pronounced just by duly appointed reI'e
is quite another. In the first case there y implied t-'t
An admission OF Justice of the demand, or dehcl y
of por OF of courage to resist tn the second neither
the admission nor the deficiency From conces'on t.s
sense of eupaDty on the one hahd' Lof OF "ehhHef
the other. In ordinary cases IL II properly AZ
tribued 10 just appreciation OF what j. due 10 he
general interest, which requires that the members ol
the law into their own hands.
Judging from past discussions, the objections Nhlh
Will be taken the part OF England to tins proposal are
s follows: The first is that unquestonab5 ia
the right that there Is no case, or shadow OF case oh
side. But this argument Ito when u may ict
sundbly, though perhaps not conclusiNely De replied,
that have no need 70 fear an adverse decsioL)
appears to be very generally considered as uhtth-
able 1t seems indeed, impossible to read the CORE
spondence on the subject without Perceyng nat ters
exists least some color for the American ylew TO
statement that the recognition was piecipats, aer
to say the least, some show Oh reason rom li,
fact, that OF the great battles oi me war h't
one had been fought when II occurred (Which
is saying, in other words, t4at the @ ~CMn %ai IaI Ii
not then actually beglDi Wmle the reasoning oi our
Government that the United states themselves bad OH
declared thelr behgerency u uepE'eu III een, pa" va
its value by the further fact that Tie queens frota--
ton appeared before the issue OF the complete fc,u-
tal authority for the blockade OF the southern loit
But even supposing that the recognition could not I'D
these respects be considered as PFccPa9 is tny 10
fOuucatlOn for the complaint oi te hea Sl"'', Niln
regard Oltl The answer Is thought To pe absolutely
conclusive that they had blockaded the ports, ana there
y themselves proclaimed the Deigercucy o the = nth
But is il possible that Government b' A9I
ports which may happen to have been seized by reges
without cOnferrng upon them 6elhgret rights ana IN
yolycl How would IL suit Great Britain 10 accept thB
doctrine FOR her own ports OF Cork ana waterford, sup
irish rebels Is it, or rs, r. not tLe . ilg,,
5t e5t gas 9st' Britain we sS SoeEaded Of @
ports and far rom admitting that Delhgercht F-'.
were thereby accorded 10 tnsni, Ieated a. a '"S,''
port 1t not here asserted that to these argument On
the American side no answer be given on the Ir u
Great Britain lit is asserted tnat they A"'o
not been answered by our Government In q manner
which, 10 many persons, will not uureasonaby appear
conclusive all that is cOntendeG for l. that j. y
absurd to that on this point the American Go' -
ment is so absolutely and hopelessy destitute OF '-
dow of argument and all possible preted Tor COM it
tnat this Is a 10 which arbitration wholly Iap
cable Il is perfectly possible ami even pfooa9le ta ia
Careudons reply 10 Mr. Fish nght be considered cole
elusive by the arbitrator. What seems Impossible i''
that any conceivable arbitrator at an qualified oi ll'
position should Orsder that there absolutely Lo
ing to be said the other side. Another answer Up.
posed to he decisive as against the view taken hN iho
United states regard 70 the recognition D., thdt Do us
correspondence with foreign Governments on the Su
orsaniled Sciy war" But it is surely dicut 70
that this argument, though fair weapon ot e"hI
versy, l. by no means unans"efaps. iho ''gn
Of the British American colonies winch led 10
sud II any one had said that those colonies hal
levied Imminent, fragrant, deadly war against
neither very unnatural nor very lncohslscnt WI jAe
facts Of the Yet no one can imagine that suc
statement would have prevented any immediate d'tIi-
ration OF war on the part OF Great br IN II ahl o.'s
state had dared to accord TO the eolonsts ne St ~
begerency. ON the whole, i seems Impossible al me
time to pretend to impartial Jud asn ana 20 u,ny
that, whether the view taken 10y the United sta''"
this subject be erroneous or not 1t rests upon son'
The other objection on the part Of ENGLAND VIZ
NrOndDll
OF a neutral power Of her right 10 recognize the hc"-
erency OF the TevOed States would not De coh-l NJ
with national serespect. IL is true that lls ot h
has been 50 far inyaiGacd as that, 10y me Gar,
Iobnson Convention England had agreed that this
grievance of recognition should De submitted 10 the af
traitor appointed To aUudlcaie upon the Alapall. .
AS one OF tie data for his guidance but ne dlIt'o
I'm degree between this concession and the direct REFER
enee now suggested will be strongly insisted on NOr Ah
IL be denied that such mode OF deciding such GLrs.
ton is more alarming to national susceptblltes man
would be rs decision by that time hOn"red truD.a'
which dispenses justice through the med.u or tAf'
siyr compounds. But the question Is which OF ii', -
tyyn met really most worthy OF great uatohi ~
IL were not for the strange haucnatlOn when suplo,
that nations and individuals are ainendDle 10 aIn.t,
moral laws IL would bee that tins /, Ease III win"
IL l.. IL l q m ! 4