The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-02-09

uominl0ns were wholly unarmed, ana sOmo Oh tnem
constructed a. mere merchant ships, without any
special adaptation for war; that they were few In
number, and that the persons who gained posses
sion ana control OF them and by whom they were
used for war were themselves las the government
Oh Inc United States has never ceased to maintan)
american citizens. Circumstances such as these
muss greatly aflect In the Judgment OF any I'M
partial PEI son, the question as to the
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE NEUTRAL GOVERNMENT.
fet 1t Is nevertheless true that being such as II
done or authorized by the neutral government would
have compromised Its neutrality and had an tnevt-
table tendency TO disturb It's relations with the bel
ligerent against whom they were directed. Her
Majesty's government, therefore. has not hesiated
to express Its regret frankly and publicly 10 the gov
eminent Of the United States and has permitted
the expression or 1t to be placed on record in the
treaty which has been concluded between the two
Powers.
THE QUESTION OF CASH.
But the government OF the United States insist
that 1t Is entitled to satisfaction in money for
Claims which asserts have arisen out of the acts
OF these vesses-that u.s. out OF operations OF war
carried on by means OF them by the persons IN
possession OF them for the time being. II Is mani
fest that this contention Is Que which Her Britannia
MaJesty's government although animated by the
most friendly feelings toward the United States,
could not with Que regard for Its own rights
and those Of neutral nations in general. consent
to acknowledge not believing 1t to lie just 1t is
claim of strict right and can be supported only
by clearly establishing that an International duty,
owed by Great Britain to the United States. has
been violated by Great Britain, aud by showing,
further, that an apprecable injury has accrued
directly from this cause to the United States, for
which Great Britain ought In justice. to make
PREPARATION In money. 1t is for the government Of
the United states, them TO substantate these posi-
lions, to specify clearly the international duty
duties which 1t relies and 70 prove the violation
OF which 1t complains.
WHAT WE MUST PROVE.
charge OF Injurious negligence ON the part OF a
sovereign government In the exercise OF any OF the
powers OF sovereignty needs to be sustained on
strong and solid grounds. Every sovereign govern
ment claims the right to be independent OF exter
nal scrutiny interference in It's exercise or these
powers, anu the .eneral assumption that they are
exercised with good faith ana reasonable care, and
that laws are fairly and properly administered an
assumption without which peace ana friendly inter.
course could not exist among nations, ought to
hubsist until II has been displaced by proof to
the contrary. 1t is not enough to suggest or
prove that a government In the exercise OF
o reasonable Judgment on some question Of fact
law, and using the means Of information at its
command has formed and acted on opinion
from which another government dissents can
induce an arbitrator to dissent Still less Is 1t sum-
cient to show that Judgment pronounced by o
court OF competent jurisdiction and acted upon by
| the executive was tainted with errors. An al.
ministrative act, founded error or an erroneous
judgment Of a court, may, indeed, under some Cir.
cumstances, found claim to compensation on be-
half OF person or government injured
by the act Of Judgment; hut a charge
OF negligence brought againsta government cannot
be supported on such grounds. Nor is 1t enough to
suggest or prove some defect OF judgment pene-
tratiOn, somewhat less than the utmost possible
promptitude and celebrity OF action on the part Of
oflcer OF the government In the execution of his
Official duties. TO found on this alone q claim to
compensation for breach Of International duty,
would be to exact In international affairs, perfec-
ton Of administration which few governments or
none attain In fact or could reasonably hope to
attain In their domestic concerns. 1t would set up
| an impractlcable, and therefore
AN UNJUST AND FALLACIOUs STANDARD
would give occasion to incessant and unreasonable
complaints and render the situation neutrals in.
toerabe. Nor. again, Is nation to be held RESPONSE.
BILE for delay or omission Occasi0ned by mere acct.
dent and not by the want or reasonable foresight
Lastly, it is not sufficient to show that an
act has been done which 1t was the duty OF the gov.
eminent to endeavor to prevent It Is necessary to
allege ana to prove That there has been failure to
|
ment was bound to endeavor to prevent such care
as governments ordinarily employ In their domestic
concerns and may reasonably be expected to exert
In matters OF International interest and obliga.
| tons.
These considerations apply with especial force to
nations which are In the enjoyment Of free insutu.
| lions. and in which the government is bound to
obey and cannot dispense with the laws.
TO THE ARBITRATORs.
II the tribunal should come TO tine conclusion that
| Great Britain has incurred any liability to the
United States, the question will then arise what
| should be deemed the just measure and extent of
that liability. Her Britannia MaJesty's governments
| abstans ct present from entering into that
| question, and will reserve such observations
| as may be fifty offered In relation to 1t
| on the part Of Great Britain to o later
stage OF the proceedings Here 1t IL sufficient to
| remark that claim on the part Of belgerent 10
Unidentified at the expense of neutral for losses
inflicted or Occasoned by any Of the ordinary
| operations Of war, on the plea that those opera
tons were assisted facilitated by negligence on
the part OF the neutral government, is one which
involves grave considerations. and requires to be
weighed with the utmost care Losses OF which
such negligence Is the
DIRECT AND rRoxIMATE CAUSE
And 1t Is In respect OF such only that com.
pensatton could Justly be awarded. Success In
warlike operations 10 generally due not only
to the force possessed, but to the skill and
courage exerted by the successful combatant.
II claims OF this nature were to be freely admitted
beligerent might demand to be Unidentified by
the neutral against consequences fairly attributable
In part or altogether not to the autsof the latter
but to his own want Of capacity and enterprise.
Her MaJestys government has been compelled to
point out that respect to the vessels to which the
foregoing statement relates there was, on the part
OF the government OF the United States or Its
officers -
AN EXTRAORDINARY REMIssHRss
In using the naval forces at their disposal and that