The Portland daily press., 1872-02-15
THE PRESS.
THURSDAY MORNING, FEB. Is, 1872.
THE ALABAMA CLAIMS.


OUR PRESENT DIFFERENCE WITH GREAT
BRITAIN.
Our lease" begins with an historical intro
duction.
1.-THE INTRODUCTION.
inns gives an account of the meeting of
the Joint High Commission at Washington !.
recltes the protocol of the Commissioners M
on the Alabama claims which included the
substance of the treaty on this subject after
wards ratified; recites the full text of the
treaty itself, and finally declares what the
United States propose to show by this case
They undertake to show that in the whole
course of Great Britain to this country during
the rebellion, there was ga studied unfriend1
illness or fixed predisposition adverse to the
United States" which furnished motive to
acts inconsistent with its duty as neutral" :"
next, they propose to point out what the du-
ties of Great Britain really were in respect to
the cruisers to be named; then they will
show that Great Britain failed in these duties
so as to be liable to the United States in dam
ages; and, finally, they will try to satisfy the
tribunal with evidence for estimating the
amount OF damages, and will ask the tribunal,
under article of the treaty, to award ga sum
in gross, to be paid by Great Britain to the
United States, for all the claims referred to.
1.-THE UNFRIENDLINEss OF GREAT BRIT
AIN.
The second part reviews ''the unfriendly
course pursued by Great Britain toward the
United States from the outbreak to the close
OF the insurrection." It is evident that if the
claims to be submitted to the tribunal are on
ly for the direct damages done by British
cruisers to our slipping, then this considera-
ton OF national untriendliness is wholly inad-
missible. Thus, at the very outset of the ar
gument it is clearly implied that the arbitra
tors are to consider the question of indirect
damages; and this notion is so intimately in
terwound with every part of the statement
and the argument, that if it were answered
that everything is impertinent to the case ex-
cept that which bears upon the direct injuries
done to our commerce by the ten or twelve
vessels complained of, nine-tenths of the
"case" as written would fall out and the rest
would lose most of its force. And vet,
strange to~say, there is hardly to be found
anywhere in the ''case" sentence or para
graDh which can fairly be called demand
that an award be made for indirect damages.
This part of the case lays emphasis ON the
friendliness shown by this country to Great
Britain up to 1860, and their amicable rela-
tions then; gives an outline of the political
causes and history of the great secession: of
the "Union party in the South; and of the
attitude of each of the two governments after
Mr. Lincoln's Inauguration. The course of
the following events in the two countries is
then scrutinized closely, as to dates and Sc
quence, until Mr.. Adams arrived in London,
on May Ii, 1851, in the evening, with view
to show that the British government decided
to recognize the rebels as belligerents at sea,
before there was any evidence whatever be-
fore them that there would be any war either
by sea or by land; that the Presidents pro
clamation of blockade of April 10, by which
the British proclamation of neutrality is
sometimes defended, was never heard of in
London until May 8, two days after Lord
John Russell had directed the Lords of the
Admiralty that nothing should be done by
the naval forces indicating any partiality or
preference for either party" and that the
first complete and official copy of the Presi-
dents proclamation was received by Great
Britain May IL, stem days after Lord John
Russell had decided to recognize the rebels as
belligerents, and five days after this decision
had been announced in Parliament. Use is
made of the language of members of the Brit
ish government to prove their unfriendliness
to this country. Legal authority is cited to
show that the proclamation itself relieved res
idents of England from severe penalties for
conspiring together to raise and promote re-
volt from friendly power. Mr.. Bright's ar
gument is cited, that the haste to issue the
proclamation, without waiting for the arrival
OF our minister, Mr.. G. F. Adams, then hour
ly expected in London, showed hostility of
feeling towards u.s. While acknowledging
the sovereign right to issue the proclamation,
the lease" regards it as ''an unfriendly act"
Great Britain, on May 6, 1S41, called on
Napoleon's government to join it in obtaining
milton OF the second and third articles of the
Declaration of Paris" Here the rebels were
called beligerents seven days before the
Queens proclamation, and an attempt was
made Ito open direct negotiations with
them"-an unfriendly act, which was care
fully concealed from our government. The
British legation at Washington was even used
to communicate with Jefferson Davis on this
su9ject-''an abuse of diplomatic privilege
and violation of neutrality, if not enough
to justify abe United States in regarding it as
"a cause of war;" Yet these negotiations
were carried on with view to get the con-
sent OF the United States to the declaration
against privateering, but only conditionaly,
so as to have no bearing upon letters of
marque that might be issued by the insur
gents" and probably with view to 'legalize
such letters in the eye of British law, and to
countenance the bearers of them'' in destroy
ing our commerce. During them all, the ne
gotiations with this country were thrown
OPOh w thC lCUClo, WuuC tuc ucSOLldllOnS at
Richmond were kept secret from our govern
ment; and it was deliberately attempted to
secure an assent to the pledge against priva-
teering while exempting the rebels from it,
although as in the Declaration of Paris, sit
had been agreed that the rules should be
maintained as whole and indivisibe." Mr.
Adams's despatch, commenting sharply upon
these proceedings, is then quoted.
The case then takes up the Trent affair,
x%a1l.r
ton with which Great Britain resented the
act Wilkes, in stretching doubtful point
of belligerent power, with the slowness and
irresolution shown by her in dealing with
rebel violations of her neutrality, as in the
case OF the Alabama and the Laird rams. NJ
Rolin-Jacquemyns's criticisms on British
neutrality are cited, and quotations are
made from speeches by Earl Russell, Mr..
Gladstone and Mr.. Palmerston to show the
strong prejudice of the Cabinet against this
country. Lord Westbury is quoted as saying
in the House ofLords that ''the animus with
which the neutral powers acted was the only
true criterion whether their neutrality was
sincere or not; and as contending that the
British government had had "an undue pref
erence and prediction for the Confederate
States" and as adding, "you were, therefore,
not loyal in your neutrality"
1t is, in Lord Westburys words, Gas an ar
gument upon the question whether there was
sincere neutrality or not" that the case asks
the tribunal to regard the testimony of un-
friendliness here given. 1t will be observed
that no claim for damages for any of the acts
or speeches named above is even suggested.
They seem meant to prepare the mind to un-
derstand why the breaches of neutrality oc-
Cured which are afterwards urged as grounds
for claiming damages.
HI.-DUTY OF GREAT BRITAIN AS A NEU-
TRIAL.
The proclamation of neutrality having made
Great Britain an avowed neutral, she assum-
ed the duties and liabilities of neutral. The
case goes on to define these as recognized by
the British Foreign Enlistment act and
amendments; by the law of nations; by the
Queens proclamation of neutrality Itself; by
instructions from the British government to
its officers during the rebellion; by the previ-
Gus intercourse between that government and
our own, and by other precedents in treaties
and under international law.
The acknowledged rules given in the Trea-
ty OF Washington, Article VI, for the gui-
dance of this tribunal are then recited, and
an attempt made to show the full meaning
OF the "due diligence" which, as it is there
held, neutral government must exercise to
prevent the fitting out, arming or equpping"
Of vessels against a friendly power. The
lease" holds that "due diligence is "a dill
gence proportioned to the magnitude of the
subject and to the dignity and strength OF the
power which is to exercise it; diligence
which shall, by the use of active vigilance