The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-08-26

exactly how far this discussion on our part might
properly 60. In one sense, our deliberate judg-
ment is, that this new discussion has really added
but little to the views or the argument which had
already been presented ON behalf OF the British
government and that IL has not disturbed the posi-
tlons which had been insisted upon, the part of
the United States, in answer TO the previous dis
cussons on the part OF the British government,
contained in its case, counter case and argument.
But to have treated the matter in this way, and
left our previous argument to be itself such an
answer as we were satisfied to rely upon to the
new developments OF contrary views that were pre-.
sented in this
SPECIAL ARGUMENT OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT,
would have seemed to assume too confidently In
favor OF our argument, that it was an adequate
response in ITSELF and would have been not al
together respectful to the very able, very compre-
henslve and very thorough criticism upon the main
points Of that argument which the eminent coun-
sci OF Her Majesty has now presented. Neverthe-
less, 1t seems quite foreign from our duty, and
quite unnecessary for any great service to the
tribunal. to pursue in detail every point and sug
ton. however pertinent and however skilfully ap-
piled, that Is raised in this new argument Of the
eminent counsel. We shall endeavor, there
fore, to present such views as seem to us
useful and valuable, and as tend in their
general bearing to dispose OF the difficulties and
counter propositions opposed to our views In the
learned counsel's present criticism upon them.
THE AMERICAN ARGUMENT.
The American argument presented on the 10th
OF June, as bearing upon these three points now
under discussion, had distributed the subject under
the general heads OF the measure OF international
duties; OF the means which Great Britain possessed
for the performance OF those duties; OF the true
min nf feso phroo ~
US used in the treaty; of the particular application
the duties OF the treaty to the OF cruisers
their subsequent visits to British ports and then Of
the faults, or failures or shortcomings Of Great
Britain In its actual conduct Of the transactions
under review In reference to these measures Of
duty and this exaction OF due diligence.
The special topic now raised for discussion, In
the 4at
NATTER OF "DCR DiLIcRNCE" III
generally considered has been regarded by the
counsel OF the British government as involving o
consideration, not only OF the Of diligence
required for the discharge OF ascertained duties,
but also the discussion Of what the Of those
duties was; and, then Of the exaction Of due dill
gence applicable to the different instances or oc-
casions for the discharge Of that duty, which the
actual transactions in controversy between the
parties disclosed. That treatment Of the point is
VI CUurSc, Buituulc cuOuEu ~, Al tAC Juu8Iucut
OF the learned counsel necessary for properly
meeting the question specifically under considera'
ton, because all those elements do bear upon the
question OF "due diligence" rs relative to the time
and place ana circumstances that called for its ex.
ercise. Nevertheless, 1.-The general question: thus
largely construed Is really equivalent to the main
controversy submitted to the disposition Of this
tribunal by the treaty-to wit whether the required
due diligence has been applied In the actual con-
duct OF affairs by Great Britain to the different stu.
atoms for and In which 1t was exacted.
The reach and effort Of this special argument in
behalf Of
THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT
seem to to aim at the reduction OF the duties in
cnmbent on Great Britain, the reduction OF the
obligation to perform those duties in its source
and in its authority and to the calling back OF
the cause to the position assumed and In
sisted upon in the previous argument in behalf
Of the British governments, that this was a matter
not Of international duty and not Of international
obligation, and not to be Judged Of in the court of
nations as a duty due by one nation, Great Britain,
to another nation, the United States but only as a
question of its duty to ITSELF in the maintenance OF
its neutrality, ana to its laws and to its own
people, in exertng the means placed at the service
of the government by the Foreign Enlistment act
PSoSS
dignity Of the nation.
We had supposed, and have In our argument
insisted. tiat sil thas1ong dehata concluded by
what had been settled by defnitive- convention
between the two nations as the law Of this tribu-
nal upon which the conduct and duty Of Great
Britain and the claims and rights OF the United
States were to be adjudged, and had been dis
tinctly expressed and authoritatively and finally
established in the three rules of the treaty.
Before undertaking to meet the more particular
inquiries that to be disposed OF in this argu-
ment it Is proper that at the outset, we should
take notice of an attempt to dsparage the efficacy
OF those rules, the source OF their authority and
the nature of their obligation upon Great Britain.
The first five sections OF the special argument are
devoted to this consideration It is said that the
only way that these rules come to be important in
passing judgment upon the conduct OF Great
Britain in the matter of
THE CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES
is by the consent of Her Majesty that in deciding
the questions between the two countries arisin g
out of these claims, the arbtratOrs should assume
that during the course of these transactions, Her
Maesty's government had undertaken to act upon
the principles set forth in these rules and in them
announced That requires, il is said. as principal
consideration that the tribunal should determine
what the law OF nations on these subjects would
have been II these rules had not been thus
adopted. Then it is argued that, to the PROPOSE
tons of duty covered by the first rule, the law Of
nations did not impose them, and that the obi
CATION OF Great Britain, therefore, in re-
spect to the performance OF the du-
ties assigned in that rule, not
derived from the law OF nations, not, therefore,
a duty between it and the United States, nor
duty the breach of which called for the resent
ments or the indcmnities that belong to violation
of tire law OF nations Then, it Is argued that the
whole duty and responsibility and obligation in
that regard, on the part of Great Britain, arose
under
THE PROVISIONS OF IT'S DOMESTIC LEGISLATION,
under the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment
act, under general obligation by which nation,
having assigned rule Of conduct for itself, is
amenable for its proper and equal performance as
between and towards the two belligerents. Then,