The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-02-17

Canada. What would be thought n the British
npossbie reasons for suspecting the United States
authorities OF predisposton TO conn1ve at Fenian
dncement to conciiiate The .sIrsn voter for cleo
pioneering purposes II all the wild defamation OF
BRIAN and Ireland we're carefully extracted and
reprinted with 1nvldous cOmments1 II speeches
and resolutions IN congress Presdentlal replies 10
were marshaed and arrayed together In order TO
demonstrate not the fact that neutral obligations
were violated by the United states government,
but the antecedent probability that they would be
violated Yet great part OF the American case
ipuated with this intent, and amply justfyng the
protests OF the British government against any
attempt to snllt the burden oil proof from the ac-
1he British government however, goes step
further, and protests win less justice, against
the attempt to establish charge OF injurious hegi-
Pence upon number OF assumptions each untena-
Die by ITSELF and II tenabe. Inadequate TO bear the
weight OF the charge. '1t Is necessary TO allege
ana to prove that there has been % failure TO
use for the prevention OF an act which the govern
ment was bound to prevent such care as govern
ments ordinarily employ IN their domestic concerns
ana may reasonably be expected TO exert In mat.
ters OF international interest and obllgatlonn IL
follows that administrative act founded on n
view view OF facts or OF law which the aroltraiors may
ably and was held honestly. does nos amount TO NJ
furious negligence. Still less Is IL enough
the government acted bona Ude was tainted
with error Many eminent English lawyers
were OF opinion that chef Baron Poll9ck,s
one OF ms brethren was legally unsOunl, ana would
have been reversed by The Gxchequer CHAMBER had
that Court been competent TO review it. But Mr..
Seward himself on hearing OF the verdict against
the Crown, explicitly conceded that Great Britain
being free ana constitutional country, and the
proceedings in the case OF the Alexandra having
been thus far conducted by the government In good
not be justified In deeming the verdict rendered
by the jury cause OF national complaint"
up, and the Alexandra, with other vessels o.
a similar character, were detained IN the mean
time. SO, again, 1t Is pointed out IN the British
case that miscarriage resulting from mere acct
dent or IRON want OF the very highest astute-
ness and activity ON the part OF some government
official cannot and does not constitute injurious
negligence according to international law. ii IL
could, If neutral government were bound 10 insure
bellgerentS against every msdeed winch might
cOnceivaby have been prevented by perlecuon OF
foresight and supervision unknown in the practical
conduct Of human affairs, the position OF neutrality
would become lntoierabe, and the pacific interests
OF civilized nations would be wholly sacrlhced to the
convenience OF their bellicOse nelgnbors. IL would,
indeed, be far rational 10 exact damages rom
beligerent governments LOT an the manifold
aad wani0n de.prncton or nroertv
than 10 exact damages from neutral governments
for every offence which, IN spite OF their ptecau-
tons, may have been committed by their SUBJECTS
under the influence or temptations created ny
state OF things Tor which they are not Responsible.
The very idea that nations which keep the peace
are inevitably injured by those VINO break IT, ana
have a duty towards eacn other as well as towards
can case. 1t is, therefore, satisfactory to md
1t asserted, though not perhaps with sufficient
case, that Great Britain was bound not only
the OBLIGATIONS, but Ito maintain unln-
nations have assigned to neutral Powers.n No
country has so inheXlbly upheld these rights as the
United States, and II the one-slded operation OF
weil-estabsned principle could be construed mo
an International grievance, the Germans might well
found such grievance on the wholesale supply
OF American arms TO France
1t Impossible TO read the single paragraph OF the
British case which touches on the rule to DC adopted
for the assessment OF damages, If any are
never Tor a moment contemplated the de-
mand which has actually been made. 1t il
evidently written In bssful ignorance OF the posi-
bllity that indirect losses could be Included in the
estimate and solely directed 10 show the injustice
OF saddllng neutral State with the who.e liability
Tor direct losses to which the negligence OF s gov
other hand, might nave been prevented or dimin-
ished by greater diligence on the part OF The belll-
gerent state The rceyance and force of THIS con-
slleration VIII hardly be disputed by the United
states government, though II would be no easy
matter for tue arbtrators, II the occasion should
arise, to distribute the entlre mischief 0cca-
stoned by the Alabama between the British gov
eminent, which failed TO arrest her. ana the United
States government, which failed TO capture ner.
From this point OF view it is really not impertnent
to observe that had the Southern conlederacy peen
a foreign nation, Instead OF being an aggregate OF
insurgent provinces, an indemnity for the whole eX-
pense OF the war; including the Alabama claims
would assuredly have been Imposed upon 1t, AS a
similar indemnity lnposed by Germany
France 1T Is only because the belligercnt commu-
NIFTY IS now re-apsorDed into the American Union
That an Alabama question exists at al, ana we are
called upon 10 compensate the American nation aG
large for injuries committed by and for the advan-
| tage OF rebellious section OF It's QUEENS
ana that too, when British as wen as Amer
lean merchants suffered largely by the
contest. But let us waive. Tor arguments sake the
conclusive reasons already stated 10y us for decn
ing TO discuss the claim Tor consequential damages
before the arbtrators at all. II TINS claim were
otherwise admissible it would be inadmlsslDle oa
the ground that IL stands condemned by well known
| maXims of law common 10 English and AmerIca an
| Courts: SO that Mr.. sumner who first started It,
fam to rely on dictum OF Roman Jurisls, lay
ing down as the standard OF damages 'Y,tdntule
| 1.,tI nIpS mi
| 1t would be disallowed on this ground,
among others, by any impartial board OF
aroitrators may De taken as certain but this
certainty must not lead US to acqulesce IN Its re-
| naming on the record. Were such u deviation from
the understanding embodied In the protocols TO he
permitted, 10 would be necessary for Great Britain.
IN sell-delence 10 Introduce variety OF topics
wisely excluded by the same understanding, ana
by no means conducive TO an amlcaole or lasting
settlement. Better TO rescind the Washington
Treaty altogether than 10 Illustrate its object in
this manner. IL is our earnest hope-naY, more, It
Is our beef-that so disastrous an Issue VIII be
averted by simple and frank withdrawal of The
government may be enabled to reassure Parliament
on an early day Of The approaching session.
Cannot Allow the Claim of Indirect Damages
To lie submitted to Adjudication.
The London Dotv Ne,os of February says that
the situation In which England finds Itself placed
makes it pertinent to consider whether the consti
tuuonal tradition or superstition which reserves the
treaty making power In our political system exclu
sively the sovereign might not wisely be revised
In the enthusiasm OF reconciliation or the hurry o.
negotiation government and commissioners
seem TO have paid insufficient attention TO exact
ness OF phraseoogy. III the Treaty or Washington
had been submitted to Parliament or to commit
tee OF both houses before ratification Lord
Carns' criticisms might have issued IN some modl-
fcation OF its language. The sense, however, IN
which 1t was assented TO by the English govern
ment, and, as we believe, the only rational inter
pretation of It, Is beyond impartial dispute. We
cannot allow Tor moment that under II the IN