The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-04-19
Acceptance of a Portion of the
Washington Accusation and
Denial of the Remainder.
Indirect Claims Ignored and Di-
rect Claims Defined.
Precedents from Am eI.i-
can FiIibusterism.
TeLeGaAMs TO THE NEW YORK HERALD.

1ne I0lIOWlnR IL u Synopsis OF the counter case
presented at Geneva by the agent on the part Of
Great Britain.
PART l. begins by announcing that to the Ameri-
can imputatons Of hostile motives and insncere
neutrality no reply whatever will be offered
England distinctly refuses to enter into
a discussion on those insnuations, because
it would be inconsistent with her sefrespect, irre
evant to the main issue and tend to infame the
controversy. England's governing desire is to full
fill, even exceed her international duties Nor will
any reference be made to the claims for indirect
damages, as correspondence with regard
to them is pending between England and
the United States. England assumes that the
claims are limited to losses occasioned by the
Florida, Alabama, Georgia and Shenandoah but
does not object to the Introduction Of the names OF
nine other rebel cruisers added to the list by the
American case. She calls attention to the fact
that none OF these vessels had previously
been mentioned. No award Ia possible for the
depredations OF the Boston and Salle, which
are in the list, but are not mentioned elsewhere
In the Of the United States and were probably
inadvertently included.
The Board of Arbitration is reminded that It's
conclusions must be formed ON proofs, not
allegations, and the evidence must be
sifted. The statements OF American con-
sus are credible when made with regard
to facts within their personal knowledge, but they
are unreliable when dealing with rumors. The
consuls Of the American government, jealous to in
discretion shared the rritabiity generated by the
war, and erroneous views throughout the struggle
colored their reports England rejects as evidence
the papers captured on the Richmond their authors
being unknown.
PART II. deals with the American argument. 1t
disputes the proposition that q neutral Power is
bound at the request of belligerent to enforce its
III
are inefficient. 1t admits that reparation
Is due for an appreciable injury result
ing from clear 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 exceptionally rigorous APP
plications made Of these propositions to England.
1t urges that at the time Of the Confederate was
the mere sale and delivery OF vessel adapted
for war to beligerent was not
violation Of neutrality Nevertheless, on this
point it accepts the rules of the Treaty of Washing
ton, not with the overstrained construction put
upon them by the government Of the United States,
but according to their obvious purpOrt 1t regrets
that the United States should fit to strain the
Interpretation of these rules to the utter
most, instead of accepting them In fair
and reasonable sense. 1t argues that England
was bound to receive the Alabama she would
vesse-ofwar OF any sovereign State, and concludes
authority on international law, to show that the
principles for which the United States contend
never heretofore seriously asserted or recognized
In Europe or America.
PART III. treats OF the presidents addresse in the
American case, and replies thereto with others,
such as the fllbustering attacks OF Lopez on Cuba
and Walker on Mexico and Central America, and
the Fenan raid on Canada. History this
subject is the history of unlawful enterprises, orig
mating in America and with American citizens
American privateer have from time to time har-
raised England, Spain, Portugal, Mexico, Central
America, Cuba and Canada
PART w. considers the various complaints made
of the tranc In munitions Of war with the South,
blockade running by British ships, &c.
PART v. gives the history of the cruisers Sumter
and Nashville; complains of being required to meet
demands In regard to which the sole difficulty is TO
treat them as serious.
PART VI gives an account OF the Florida and Ala
bama with the details OF their escape. 1t seeks to
show that the time which elapsed between Mr.
Adams application and the Alabamas departure
was too short to justify the charge OF negligence
and claims that, in this respect England cannot be
charged with any failure of duty.
PART VII. is devoted to the history Of the Shenan
doah and Georgia.
PART VIII. relates to the other vessels and re-
pudiates responsibility of Great Britain for their
depredations.
PART k treats of the reception OF rebel cruisers
In British ports and seeks to defend the conduct of
Great Britain by comparing it with that Of other
nations.
Part X after recapitulating the facts and argu-
mens of the preceding parts, declares the claim for
interest on the damages awarded from July l. 1868,
untenable The losses which the arbitrators may
take into account are at the utmost those directly
IL
property. After describing the situation OF anxiety
and insecurity In which neutrals would be placed
In time OF war should the doctrines presented In
the American case as to their duties prevail the
counter case concludes with the expression of q
hope that frank, open statement of facts will
eGectually remove every misunderstanding between
nations allied by nnumerabe ties
The Alabama Claims Question I'm Par-
liament-1Ir. Gladstone Rcticent.
LONDON, April ls--Mldnight.
| In the House Of Commons tonight, through the
active exertons OF the party "whips," the
benches were well filed Exciting debates on
| the course Of the government at Geneva
and on the Ballot bin were expected, ana the gale
res were also crowded. Both members and spec.
tators were disappointed in the first case, as the
attempt TO draw Mr.. Gladstone out on the Alabama
claims failed
| Hon. MI. NyHuhuII, HcuiDer IOr west CumDef-
| land asked the government why the British coun-
ter case was presented at Geneva without condi-
ton that the claim for indirect damages should be
withdrawn by the American government.
Mr.. Gladstone simply replied that he doubted the
policy of answering the questions while .hc govern
| ment was waiting Tor note from America whic,
| would probably form an EPOCH In this
affair. No further questions were put on
this subject and the House subsequently went into
Committee of the Whole on the Ballot bill. An