Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1872-09-17
TUESDAY,. SEPT. IA, 1879.
The Gencva Aspiration.

The Alabama question has been Settled" by
an award of damages against Great Britain,
and by the formal understanding that "indirect
damages shall, hereafter, be regarded as mad
Missile in all similar cases. In regard to the
rebel buccaneer, Alabama, the arbitrators find
that ''the British government failed to use due
diligence in the performance Of its neutral obi
Cations and that it can not excuse this failure
con the plea Of insUfficiency in the legal means
of action it possessed" This disposes of large
amount Of arrogant talk in which Earl Russell
and Others INDUCED themselves, in the course of
the negotiation. The same decision is an
nouneed relative to the Florida, and the
Shenandoah; and it is decided, also, that
the British government is necessarily re-
sponsible, for the negligence and misbchayior
of its sia5nial authorities where these cruising
buccaneers found favor and supplies. The
Shenandoah not only found favor at Melbourne,
but succeeded 10 enlist a considerable number of
men, while in that port. This Judgment against
Great Britain includes, also, the three smaller
vessels used as tenders TO the Alabama and
Florida. The other rebel pirates, the Georgia,
the SUMTER the Nashville, the Tallahassee, and
the Chickamauga, were not included, the arbi-
traitors finding that Great Britain was not re-
sponsible for these. The decision is signed by
Mr.. Adams, and by all the other arbitrator ex-
cept Sir Alexander Cockburn, who represented
England. He dissents and makes separate re-
port.
1t is noteworthy fact that the leading Gree
ley organs cannot allow even this matter to
pass without making desperate efforts to extort
from it materials for an attack on the admins
tration. Some of them talk as if, in gaining
this case against Great Britain we had effected
the establishment Of new principles of inter
national law, very unfayorable 10 ourselves.
They know very well, however, that thedecision
of the arbitrator is based on long established
principles of international law; principles
recognized by all civilizedinatons, and distinctly
admitted in the treaty. The Tribune goes so far
as to assert that England is left in condition to
repudiate these principles hereafter, while we
are forever bound by them; but this emo organ"
has lost its reason. Another Greeley organ
says, the "new principles" were agreed to in
the treaty under which the arbitrator acted,
which directly contradicts the Tribune's aSser-
ton, although it is not true any more than what
the Tribune says is true. They should both be
capable Of understanding with better grace,
that the principles in question are great deal
older than the Alabama question. Meanwhile,
for their own sakes, they ought to have little
more method in their partisan madness, and
agree among themselves TO make their unscru-
pulous talk against the administration a little
less discordant
The only principle settled by this negotiation,
which can with any degree of proprety be
called "new," is that hereafter in our relations
Wifi Great Britain, no claim for indirect dam
ages" can be raised by either party. There
must be positive violation or disregard of in
ternational law, before any claim for damages
will be in order. This principle, of course, is
wholly in favor of neutrals. In the present
case, it shuts out claims on our side for "indi-
rect damages" but as, in all future wars,
we are far more likely than Great Brit
ain to occupy the position of neutrals,
it will operate chiefly in our favor We can
not, as neutrals, do against Great Britain or any
other nation what Great Britain did against us
without violating international law; but it is
settled now, that, in no case hereafter, can the
British government bring against us any claim
for indirect damages. 1t has been agreed thai
such claims shall be treated as inadmissible
They are forever ruled out of court, and we,
more than any other people, shall get the advan-
tage of it.