The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1872-04-25

SLuu .uu a tuO N4btoko - ~ 80
such care as governments ordinarily employ
In their domestic concerns" the British case
limits the established legal meaning Of these
words. The United States repel The sugges-
ton that the lack of diligence must approach
the limits Of wllful negligence before liability
for resulting, injuries viii attach to the neu,
trail. It Is the duty of nentrals to see that
:their municipal laws are adequate to the en-
forcement OF their International obligations,
and therefore the statements Of the British
case, as to the condition Of Its municipal laws
at different stages Of the controversy, are not
relevant.
5. The United States contend that the asser-
ton is erroneous, that It's contest terminated
In 1866 in the complete reconquest of the
eleven Confederate States. It Is averred that
no Confederate vessels were preying upon the
commerce Of the United States when the Flor.
Ida and the Alabama escaped from Liverpool.
Other maritime nations did not accord bellige-
rent rights until after Great Britain had done
80, and thereby conferred on the Confederate
States the largest advantages which such re-
coenltion conferred. The United States deny
that the hospitality OF British ports was &C.
corded impartially 10 each 6ellgerent. 9
call attention to the fact that the laws Of AUS
tria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, the
Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Spain and
Sweden and Norway prohibit the acts Of which
the United States is complaining. The state-
.mepts as to the inefectlvepess OF President
WaSQlORLOu6 aLL6upLS " oupptSpS w ooluS
out of French privateers Is disputed. With
reference to the statement as to the inadequate
manner in which the United States has dis
charged Its duty as q neutral, In times past, to.
ward Spain, Portugal and other powers, a mass
of new evidence Is submitted TO the arbitra-
tors to show that such duty was discharged with
fidelity, activity and effectively. 1t is denied
that the British neutrality act Is more slrln-
gent than that of the United States, passed In
1918, and the two acts are compared to show
the superiority OF the latter. to which point
the testimony of Sir Frederick Bruce, former
minister OF Washington, Is cited. The officers
OF the United States were dligent IN calling
the attention Of the British Government to
contemplated breach of neutrality, and That
government did not thereupon tas 1t claims 10
have donel act promptly by seizure OF the
suspected vessel when It had q prtma facle
case. The United States contend that British
customs officers possessed ample authority TO
act upon the Information furnished.
4. The language In one part Of the British
case leads to the inference that Mr.. Adams's
representations with reference to the Alabama
and other vessels, were based on infringe
ment of municipal law, which Is not accordant
with the facts.
ing the escape ofthe Florida, with q view to
fixing the liability of Great Britain, and also
maintains that Bermuda was made by that
vessel q base of operations against the com.
uerce of the United States. The supposed
negligence Of the navy is denied.
6. The case of the. Alabama Is reviewed IN
like manner, aud it is maintained that the
United states made every effort TO bring her
In similar manner the cases of the Georgia.
and Shenandoah are examined In detail. The
coppter.c case concludes:
0npage I67 Of the cose OF her Ma1esty's
government, It is sald: "If the tribunal should
Come to the conclusion that Great Britain has
incurred any liability to the United States,
the question will then arise what should oe
deemed the least measure and extent OF tne
liability? Her Britannia Majpsiy's govern
ment abstain at present from entering lnCo
that question. and will reserve suca OBSERVE
lions as may be flly offered In relation 10 IL at
the latter stage of the proceedings. Here 1t 10
sufficient to remark that q claim on the part
Of belligerent to be Unidentified at the ex-
pense of a neutral for losses inflicted or occas-
Toned by any OF the ordinary operations OF
war, on The plea that those operations were
assisted or facilitated by negligence on the
part of the neutral government, Is one Wnlcn
be weighed with the utmost care. Losses OF
which such negligence is the direct and prox-
innate cause land 1t is In respect OF such only
thai compensation could justly be awarded)
are commonly not easy to separator from
those epringing from other causes"
The United States concur win ner halestys
government In the opinion that "a claim on
the part OF q berlgerent to be UNIDENTIFIED, at
the expense of a neutral, for losses lnnlcteo
or occasioned by any of the ordinary opera
tons of war, Is one which Involves grave con
sideration, and requires to be weighed WllA
the utmost care" Without the explanatory
observations which her MaJesty's government
reserves the right to make In q later stage OF
the proceedings, they cannot say how far they
do or do not concur In the further statement
that compensation can only be Justly AWARDED
by the tribunal In respect to losses OF which
the negligence of the neutral is the direct
or proximate cause. ..
Il appears to them, however, that certain
eexeral considerations may reasonably De
Assumed by the arbitrators. l. Both parties
Contemplate that the United States Will endea-
VorH to establish In these proceedings some
tangible connection OF cause ana enece oe-
tween the Injuries for which they ask compen,
satlon and the FACTS committed oy Tue sevelal
vesselsn viii. III the treaty contemplate are 70
no shown to be the point of those injuries; =;
The tribunal of arbitration being q lualclai
body. invested BY the parties with inc Iunc-
fiona necessary for determining the Issues De-
tween them, and being now seized OF Luz su1,
stance of the matters In dispute. VIII lulu
itself bound by such reasonable ana estaeus.eo
snles of law regarding the relations ot cause
-and effect as It may assume that the parties
had In view when they entered INTO tnelr en-
.oa9ement to make this reference. 8. Neither
,Sarty c~ontemplaies that the tribunal VIII
establish sor be governed by rules 10 TINS Re,
spect which will either on the one hand teno
N release ~Deutrals from their duty to show a
strict neutrality, or on the other hand will
make a course of honest neutrality uEduly
Leaving, now, the issue raised by the cases
and counter cases of the two governments to
the arguments of counsel and the decision OF
the tribunal, the United States repeat, Win .
strenofhenpd conviction, the language With
which they closed their case: 1T Is In the
HIGHEST Interest OF the Two great pow. re- which
annear at this bar that the causes OF difference
which have arisen between them should oe
.speedily and forever set at rest. The Uultrc
.Ststes entertain q confident expectation tina
>bsr Ha;asty,s government will concur Will
.tham in this nninion."