The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-02-20

Our Situation with Engiaud-Frosidene
Grants Dusy-we Must Stand by Oar
Case.
Lord Granville's note to the American gov
eminent In reference to the Alabama claims
left London on the 9th instant and will
probably reach Washington on Thursday and
be considered In the Cabinet session. The
tenor of this note has been anticipated in the
HERALD dispatches from London, and we do
not presume the text will in any way vary the
impression 1t has made upon our government.
Lord Granville will ask US in smooth, diplo-
matte way to reconsider our case as pre-
pared at the State Department, on the ground
that it places construction upon the treaty
which Is a surprise to the British Ministry
and was wholly unexpected by the English
members of the Joint High Commission, and
could only have arisen from misunderstand-
ing of the case. The point will be- made that
as In law there can be no contract where one
party fails to comprehend his share in the
obligation, and that even according to the
rude but generally sensible rules of the sport
ing clubs there cannot be true wager where
eli her party misunderstands the tenor of the
challenge, SO in the treaty we cannot hold
England to an agreement which she never
intended to make.
The English have shown great ability in this
whole Alabama question. 1t has been their
policy to narrow the case into the smallest
possible limits-to hold the Americans down
to the escape of four vessels from the English
ports-and to limit all claims for damages to
the depredations committed by these vessels.
Having done this, they would then proceed to
Lincolns administration was to blame for the
depredations of the English vessels, because
Mr.. Welles did not take proper steps to
pursue and destroy them. They will
argue that proper vigilance in the
use of our navy would have driven these
cruisers from the ocean. Our information
from Washington makes US regard this as a
very strong point, and that England, as mat
ter of fact, can show that there was laxity
of purpose on the part of our naval authori-
ties during the war, so far as the pursuit of
the English cruisers was concerned The
willy Secretary, it was suspected, used the
English cruisers as an incentive to Congress-
to compel the passage of large appropriations
for the navy. 1t will be shown that we took
the Florida by violation Of the neutrality of
Brazil, and destroyed her in surreptitious
way at Hampton Roads to prevent her return
test between the Alabama and Kear-
sarge was ON accident. With this
line of defence, and the American case forced
into the narrow limits intended by the Eng
lsh Ministers namely, the consideration Of
the actual depredations committed by four
ships-the effect will be to Offset all claims
for damages to our commerce by averments of
negligence or incapacity on the part of Mr..
Welles. If these averments could be sus-
tanned England would be released from any
pecuniary responsibility, and the tribunal
would decide that the loss of our commerce
was among the necessary calamities of war,
and as such should be accepted by the
United States. This would give England
what she Graves, the priceless advantage of
the new principles of international law as
affecting maritime nations, which this treaty
provides.
With this view of the case the English have
felt as though they held loaded dice. What
England wants-what is necessary to her
supremacy on the ocean-is precisely these
new principles of international law. So long
as the Alabama claims remain unsettled, and
the precedents established by England during
the rebellion are unchallenged-so long, in
fact, as maritime nation can so stretch its
laws that its ports may become a base of sup
plies for the enemy Of q country with which it
is at peace, without mourning any response
bility, England is held in bonds to keep the
peace with all the world. Wehave two oceans
which our seaports control, and in the
event of war between England and
any Power these oceans could be
filed with privateers or men-of-war
and with no more responsibility devolving
upon us than England has accepted in the case
of the Alabama. England, therefore, is i'm
patient to have these precedents abolished.
She will pay good deal of money for their
abolition. This is the meaning of the SUCCESS
ton that we accept gross sum Of money in
lieu of our claims. If it were not that there
was an enormous advantage to England in the
adoption of the maritime principles embodied
in this treaty there would be no treaty. We
might wait until we were tired for compensa-
ton nothing would come but diplo matte cor
respondence. We gain nothing, compare
lively, by these principles. but simply concede
them as our contribution to the peace Of the
| world.
Will England retire from this arbitration
We do not believe so. Nor should we feel any
anxiety if she did. What the English want is
to make bargain. They fancied they might
| have Qained these PRINCIPLES for nothing they