The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-04-23
OUR COUNTER CASE
Americas Analysis Of
England's Case.
A Categoric Carving of Eng
lands CaviIIing.
NOTES ABOUT NEUTRALITY.
England'S Unfortunate Challenge to Our
Neutral 0bservances.
CORRECTING THE BRITISH HISTORY MAN.
Review of the Pirate
Cruisers.
THE ENGLISH CASE STRENGTHENING OURS. !
The Alabama, Florida, Georgia
and Shenandoah.
VIGILANCE, DILIGENCE OR NEGLIGENCE.
Detention, Not Forfeiture, De-
manded During the War.
THE ENGLISH CASE STRENGTHENING OURS.
The Alabama, Florida, Georgia
and Shenandoah.
VIGILANCE, DILIGENCE OR NEGLIGENCE.
Detention, Not Forfeiture, De.
manded During the War.
Just Damages After Fair Trial
Demanded Now.

demanded NOW.
WASHINGTON, April %, 1872.
The President to-day transmitted for the infor-
nation of the Senate copy Of the counter case of
the United States in the matter of the claims
against Great Britain presented to the Board Of
Arbitration at Geneva, as follows:-
THE COUNTER CASE.
The fourth article of the Treaty of Washington permits
eash @ w f months after s snS Inc
Of the other sass and n e% u nal
y hs other party xssSs themselves this Hight Inc
together
% and assy
y1E this before the td
he do not consider Within the nee q @
ady
%s the II had he oo
an Ge they
a ~ e St the
pubcists Of aatSory So far too as contesiatons of
raised between the parties respective cases and
the supporting evidence on either side mere renewal
,s
be
with the spirit Of the treaty and with the
the general analysis and discussion Of these matters
d s the Ss s
agreement which will bs prepared by them for snbis
arguments If any the tribunal express wish to
Of they the
the tribunal to the following observations upon some
matter q ,ss part f Her Massy
PART l.
CERTAIN ERRORS or SENSE
which through the case of Her Majcsys government
Trs~It IS assumed that that the rebels the
but he haVe
s s I S hs the
who m, might be as
fo%srs Win they think ought 70 that
recognized political attributes in the insurrecton is
inadvertence.
.Ss sstss
Sa%a he Geors Ht and the shenandoah claims
reg he
caims" They are in the fourth Of ssrss
Sas$ ss ~ f"
ssis s,'Ss
sss gnasF s es hy
said Without mat % %%dsr the hey
ne The
treaty The United States therefore, while reasserng
r rsss a have the
that m s1s ns had
LITr I,aa rsE a nvLss or THE TssAr r
WIZ sfs into
which apparently aim to limit the operation q the
sa5ss s Which @
~ "AsrnicAy eIIIzxSs, IsDhrDi
which ins United States complain som%ttsd
1%T Her Shs sp
snnn 70 take zen
s r s To y q s to e e naf 81 @
nizcd begerens against the United States by the act
Which Sey
never ceased to protest 1t would to be
responsibility for the conduct the persons
thus described as "Amef PART c ~
POINTS OF DIFFERENCE.
Her Majestys government has also stated in terms
e., law Of fact ct and
The United states call attention to some Of The leading
points difference between the two cases with the recr
walton ,. made as to the points not noticed and
be British Ss 10 conccde that pese
rent who has wronged neutral by violating its soye
may cnsp r by some snbseanent act such as
mis,oning without the a,sde,ion 2, the neutral YES
deprive The Of r the na e taking a
right cannot be lost by the mere act OF the offending
belligerent.
HOSPITALITY
seondT appears to claim for vessels Of rebels rccoa
nized 5egcrents exemption from national ursdlc
ton which should be accorded If at ALL only TO
OF recognized sovereign Powers TO which Powers pot
cal representations can be made in of violations of
neutral sovereignty, and ignores the undoubted prero
gsvcs the Crown to exclude armed vessels from the
national ports
Third-I attempts to limit the operation Of the words
adue diligence in inconsistent with principles
well established the Continent OF Europe, In the
United Kingdom and In the United States II sets
the measure Of care standard which hnctuates with
each succeeding in the circuit of the globe,
such care as governments ordinarily employ in
their domestic concerns
wILrUL NEGLIGENCE.
FouhIfthe United States have correctly interpreted
its somewhat language 61 asserts that
in like the sent begerent should be required
claim for compensation, absence OF nearly cquiva
lent 10 wlful negligence. The United States had notice
that this point would be pressed by Her Majesys govern
prepared partly under the direction Of an eminent
and learned publcist, who had vigorously insisted
upon IT in his public writings on the neutrality OF
presented the consideration OF the arbtrators certain
facts exhibiting unriendy feeling toward them the
part OF individual members OF Her Majesys government
during the contest which might naturally lead 10 and
wilful negligence. But while thus anticipating this posi-
ton of Her Maesys governments case they did not ad
do not assent TO Its correctness They do not conceive
that the law of nations toleraes the proposition thht
lgcrents required to submit without redress 70 ne
injuries OF neutral negligence I'LL II reaches he eN'rehS
MUNICIPAL vs. INTERNATIONAL Law: ,...
FVhThe British case attempts 70 narrow the III re-
tional duties government 10 the exercise o. .
straining powers conferred upon II by muniSipa
INTERESTING fRRkLkvASI ..at o.
SirhIt overlooks the obligation OF the neu.rai ~,
amend its municipal laws when the powers ~ "y
such law prove inadequate ior ne p In the