The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1872-04-23

sented at Geneva on the part of Great
Britain:
Part first begins by announcing that
to the American imputation of hostile
motives and insincere neutrality, no re-.
ply whatever will be offered. England
distinctly refuses to enter into discus.
sion Of those insinuations, because it
would be inconsistent with her seli-re.
spect. irrelevant to the main issue, and
tend to infiare controversy.
England's governing desire is to full
MI, even exceed, her international duties.
Nor will any reference be made to the
claims for indirect damages, as CORES
pondence with regard to them is pending
between England and the United StateP.
England assumes that the claims are
Limited to losses occasioned by the Flo
rida, Alabama, Georgia and Shenandoah.
but does not object to the introduction
OF nine other rebel cruisers added to the
list. Mono of those vessels had previ-
ously been mentioned. No award is
possible for the depredations of the Bos-
ton and Sailic, which are in the list but
not mentioned elsewhere in the case of
the United States, aud were probably in
adyertently included.
The board of arbitrators js reminded
that its conclusions must be formed on
proofs, not allegations, and that the evi-
dence must be siftcd. The statements of
American Consuls are credible when
made III regard to facts within their per-
sonal knowledge, but they are unreliable
when dealing with rumors.
The Consuls OF the American Govern
ment. Jealous to indis:retion, shared the
lrritability generated by the war, and
"a o. = Ia ~
colored their reports.
England rejects us evidence the papers
captured on the Rosemond, their authors
being unknown.
Part second deals with the American
argument, disputes the propositions that
a neutral power is bound, ut the request
Of y belligerent, to enforce the municipal
laws and add to them if they are INSULT
cient. It admits that reputation is due
for appreciable injury, resulting from
clenr violation of international duty. but
is unable to attach distinct meaning to
some of the twelve propositions of the
American case, and demurs to the excep-
tionally rigorous application mado of
these propositions to England. It
urges that at the time of the Confederate
war the mere sale and delivery Of n yes-
sci adapted for war to belligerent was
not violation of the treaty. Neverthe.
Less. on this point it accepts the rules of
the treaty Of Washington, not with the
over-strained construction put upon
them by the United States, but accord
ing to their obvious purport. 1t reercts
that the United States should strain the
Interpretation of these rules to the utter
most, instead of accepting them in fair
and reasonable sense. It aroucs that
England was bound to receive the Alaba-
ma as she would vessel of war OF any
sovereign power, and concludes by quot.
ing from Ortoian, the eminent French
authority on international law, to show
that the principles for which the United
States contend were never heretofore Sc
riously asserted or recognized in Errope
or America.
Fart third trents OF the preccdents ad-
vanced in the American case, and REPLIES
thereto with others, such rs the fillihus-
terlng attacks of Lopez on Cnbn, and
Walker on Mexico and Central America,
and the Fenian raids ou Canadn. His
tory on this subject is the history of un-
lawful enterprises originating in America
and With American citizens The Ame-
rican privateers have from timo to time
hnrassed England, Spain, Portugal,
Nlexico, Central America, Cubu and ca
NADIA.
Fart fourth considers the various com.
plants made of trnfiic in munitions of
war with the South, blockade running
by British ships, go.
Part fifth gives the history Of the
cruises Of the Sumter and Nashville. and
complains Of being required to meet de-
mands in regard to which the sole diff
Guilty is to treat them as serious.
Part sixth gives an account of the
Florida and Alabama. with details of
their escape. 1t seeks to show that the
time which elapsed between Mr.. Adams
application and the Alabnma's departure
was too short to justify tho charge of
negligence, and claims that in this re-.
spcct England cannot DO charged with
any failure of duty.
Part seventh is devoted to the history
OF the Shenandoah and Georgin.
Part eighth relates to other vessels.
and repudiates tho responsibility of
Great Britnin for their depreciation.
Part ninth treats of the reception of
rebel cruisors in British ports, and seeks
to defend the conduct of Great Britain
by comparing it with that Of other na.