New-York tribune., 1872-01-17

assumes as the basis Of the proceedings that the only
question for tho arhNraicTs Is whether and how far
with respect these four vessels, and is liable
claims growing out OF their acts"
This position IL sanctioned by the Grbitrators reduces
the case to certain definite ssnes on WHICH evidence
the war; the becerent character of both the parties to
IT, and the law of nations with respect to the export OF
the aets OF individual citizens who engage at their
risk in such practice running may be ec-
these four vessels the British case makes an intro,
6uctory statement" of events which attended and
followed the of the civil war aud OF the
pursued in relation 10 IL by Great Britain and
other naval Powers Tie ground here trayersed will be
familiar from the numberess dispatches, speeches and
essays the subject It is urged that what the United
states Government calls an "insurrecon" was
really war between two states OF vast geographical
Of great resources, and unnehing determination
that the armies OF the North were overhrown in Vr-
gnia and only succeeded in accompanying the territory
OF the Confederate States after conflict OF four years
that the North did, in fact recognize the conflict as
war by the proclamation of blockade by the seizure and
condemnation OF neutral ships the number OF vessels
captured destroyed by vessels of the United States
during the for breach Of blockade or IN battle,
To facts the British Government applies the fol-
lowing general propositions, which IL believes to he in
accordance with the principles of international law and
the practice OF nations That s the duty OF neutral
partially toward the beligeren powers that this duty.
nasmuch az 1t flows directly from the conception OF
neutrality attends the relation of neutrality wherever
1t exists and is not affected by considerations arising
from the political relation which before the the beg
erents may have sustained to one another that IN mari
time neutral power Ia bound TO recognize In mat
relating the war, commissions issued anu cap
lures made by each belgerent and lastly, that where
either belligerent IL community or body OF persons
not recognized by the neutral power az constituting
q sovereign State, commissions issued by such belhg
erent recognized acts emanating not, indeed,
fIOm Sovereign Government but from person or per
exercising de JdolO. In relation 10 the war; the
powers OF sovereign Government. The bearing OF
these propositions the respective Of these
sells will be readily perceived. The complaint OF the
American Government relates not only to their British
ORIGIN but 10 the reception OF them subsequently in
British ports homo colonial terms OF equality with
Federal vessels the contention of the United States be-
being in substance that they pirates, and without
any legal status whatever. The British shows
tnat other neutral nations took the same view orr
selves and that their practice generally accorded with
At the time II is shown that our Government
did cOncede to the North much as 1t could without
abandoning ts neutrality, and that stringent regulations
made with respect to the use Of British ports by
vessels carrying the Confederate flag.
We have gwen what, far understand IT, II the
basis OF the British The arbtratOrs are asked
10 confne themselves 10 consideration Of the crcum
vessels concerning which the United states have made
claims and 10 view the conduct Of England IN regard
TO these vessels by the light OF doctrines which
our Government believes TO be clear and universally
accepted and OF facts which it alleges 10 be notorious
Our Government refuses 10 recognize the American
pOsitiOn-that there snatOnaity or beligerent
capacity but that Of the North and that the COnfedeTaes
were simply insurgents land and pirates at sea. 1t
would put the question follows Do the depredations
the Florida the Alabama, the Georgia and the shen
andOah make liable, assuming them TO have been the
legally commissioned vessels Of DelligeTcnt who had
during the rights equal to those Of his enemyi