The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-02-10

VIM 'niiu uSNSiOpuiSut VI all uikuuOhe S"@'~>~~-
In one OF Mr. Flsh's dispatches that Great Britain
allowed herself to become at once "the arsena.
the navy yard and the treasury of the insurgent
Confederates. Great pains are taken 10 make
1t appear that at an early period OF the struggle
there was established In Great Britain branch
OF the War Department OF the Insurgents,
branch OF their Navy department. and branch OF
their Treasury, each with almost plenary powers"
Thus, while Captain Bullock, acting for the Navy
Department, was experimenting the construction
OF cruisers Mr.. huse, on behalf of the War De-
partment, was purchasing arms and munitions
and the requisite funds were provided by
Fraser, Trenholm Co.. as financial agents
OF the Richmond government, out OF the proceeds
OF cotton imported in blockade runners From this
point OF view the offence OF Great Britain in respect
of the Alabama, for instance Is TO be measured
solely by the gross and culpab!e negligence which
permitted her TO escape, but also by the failure
to suppress these 'combned operations, which,
In the judgmenC of the United States, constituted
an organized war;" IL Is not our purpose to eX-
anime the legal validity OF this doctrine, which
be determined by the arbtrators, but II would be
dltncult to Overstate It's Importance both IN Its
bearing on the immediate issue and It's general
influence on the liabilities OF neutrality. 1t IL,
doubtless, natural that the Indignation excited In
America by the depredatlOns OF the.Alabama and
her Consorts should be greatly enhanced by the
belief that, whatever may be said, the building,
equipping arming, manning and commissioning,
though 0stensiby separate acts, were so many Inks
In one vast conspiracy, planned and carried QUO
on British soil. But the existence OF such conspr-
acy Is very different thing from the completely OF
the British government or nation with Its authors
and the sO-called proofs OF such completely are as
shadOwy as those OF the former are substantial. We
entirely agree with the view supported In the Aner
can case, that deep and widespread plot for
the abuse OF British neutrality was concerted by
MIR. Jefferson Davis and his colleagues, not without
the Interior hope or driving either Great Britain or
the United States into declaration Of war. We
positively deny, on the other hand, that jOt or
title OF evidence has been produced justify the
wholesale charges OF wlfu and conscious partiality
brought against Her MaJesty's government, whose
conduct throughout the war; as 1t most justly AYERS,
lions Of neutrality and a sincere desire TO fnIiil
them.n IL failed, indeed, on some occasions TO de-
feat the machinauons here described, but the ques-
ton Is whether any measu' es open TO a cOnstitn-
ilonal government could have defeated them, while
1t Is probable that such measure as prohibiting all
sales OF arms for warlike use would have Injured
the United States more than the Conlederates.
We cannot but regard the stress laid on presump-
ttOns, as distinct from proof IN every part of the
American case, rs an indication that III the opin-
ION OF It's trainers. no breach or international duty
can be directly established. AT the same time, we
emphatlcally repudlate these presumprl0ns aud
assert with confidence not only that Great
Britain did honorably maintain neutral at
titude but that from the first her intention
to 40 so was clearly manifest. One OF The priOyt
reasons for conforming Great Britain oil '.studed
uniriendliness'' is tie simple tnat Her Maestys
government invited the French government to
agree upon q united course OF action at the
pa to % tae war loss 10 cea SsaSes
inducement could have prompted such an act, I'm.
less II may nave been The perception on the part
OF Her MaestyS government that IL was i'm Its ma
ture not only unrlendly, but almost hostile to the
United States" Yet, IN another part OF the case
contrased with the 'haDituay insncere neutrality
or Great Brltain''-not a word being SAID nor II
Sy he H na %
the British government, for Joint recognition OF
the Southern coniederacy. This. however, is but
single topic OF the general pTiOJt reasoning by
which It Is sought to bring home what lawyers call
express malice to the British government, which.
1t Is asserted, expressly abandoned lii advanced
the intention OF employing 'any measure OF dill
gence" to repress the unlawful use OF Its terri
tory by te he s of Sana ess o
we have more tnan once pointed out on the "pre
mature' and "precipae" concession OF be;llgerent
rights to the COnlederaes An attempt Is even
made TO aggravate this accusation by showing
that Lord Russell spoke of them as "beIigerents,r
in note to Lord COwley, seven days before the
Queens proclamation appeared-as II 1t would
have been possible TO designate them Dy any term
except TINS or some equivalent, anaas II IIesident
the United States were not loudly declaring at the
very same time, and IN Language almost identical,
that state of war, involving the exercise Of bel
llgerent rights, had actually commenced. But let
us suppose the contrary. Let US suppose that, al
| though two communities with the population and
resources OF great states were engaged III lie and
death struggle, there was no legitimate delinquency
| atail Let us even adopt the seli-contradctory as
sumption of the United STATES, and suppose that
| legitimate belligerency was constituted on one
ana noe on cnm G sG be gs 81 v
| North, but no ships could properly 6e commits
stoned by the south-can we be sure tnat Grea
Britain would have. Incurred less resentment b,
acting upon this assumption In that case tht
| proceedings OF Captain Semmes must OF cours'
courts aaiI III il he chose to come within thei
| jurisdiction, but 1t Is very doubtful how
the SSvs % appeu py %ev G
| ventiOn. At all events. It is remarkable circum
| stance that Her Majesty's governments first an
nOunced the intention OF issuing the Queens pro
| ClamatiOn IN reply TO an appeal from Mr.. W. H.
Forster, a stanch friend OF the United States. The
! leading object OF that proclamation 70 warn
British subjects against relying the protection OF
their government II they should enlist in the Con-
federate service; and. however the purpose OF The
they were the subject OF earnest remonstrance from
! the Confederate government, aud welcomed by Mr..
seward as likely to "pr0ve deatnbOw to Southern
There is one passage in Part " OF the American
case which It Is impossible to pass over without u
special protest. IL Is that In which, after summing
| up s1he points established" the United States
| government proceeds TO hold IN te,r0rem over the
arbitrators the consequences OF decision in favor
OF Great Britain. IT, 1t Is urged, the tribunal shall
hold the operations OF Captain Bullock and his as
sociaes 10 have been rgntiu the foundation Will be
| laid "ior endless dissensons and wars" We reply
that no one disputes the wrOngl illness OF these
operations the issue at stake being whether Great
instituted kind of internal. blockade and succeeded
In frustrating them. II Is urged, again, that
'here Will be little inducement for nations in failure
to adopt the peaceful method OF arbitration for the
|
| retort that II the claims OF the United State
| be sanctioned there will be little Involvement
for q great maritime Power to remain neil
| tral In between Its neignbOrs: but W.
| prefer to reply that arbltrators have TO do with
| PLAN considerations OF justice, and not with du
bious and remote considerations Of ypcdiency. II
is urged, further that II 1t was right to give the
Nashville and Sumter more than minimum sup
pv OF coal or to permit the sale OF the Georgia in
| British port 'the United States, as a nation.
| whose normal condition Is one OF neutrality. accept
the doctrine" We reply that assuming the Facts to
,oo tiv afo al WniVlnn
| in which the inference Is suggested. 1t Is
| no business OF the arbirators to inquire
| whetner the action of the British authOrtles
was .right' bat simply whether 1t amounted
to injurious negligence or vlollt OF neutrality
| under the rules OF the treaty. IL ~ urged. once
more that If International duties are to he limited
by municipal law, If commissions issued by 81
so-called government OF lrsurrectionistsn ar
| concluslveiy valid TO cover previous transgres
| sions. II the Alabama and her consorts "mav b
| allowedp to do as they Old. and 'ff It be M
| OfJence'' to recruit men for them, ana SO forth
| the United States will gain an advantag