The New York herald., 1872-02-16
THE ALABAMA CLAIMS
The British Case and the
American Demands.

>~~~~~>~.>->>~>o->
Opinions Of the English Press on the Obligations
of England Under the Washington Treaty.
The London, Liverpool, Manchester and Scotch
papers 0f dates up TO February l. which have come
70 hand by the steamship Republic. contain lengthy
articles on the Alabama claims The following are
extracts from the prominent journals OF the latest
cates:-
The case presented Uy Her Maesty's government
to the Geneva Tribunal OF Arbitration, the London
Times says differs IN one essential respect from
that presented by the government OF the United
states Not only Is 1t far more c0lorless ana tcm-
perae In its tone but 1t Is far more limited In It's
scope proceeding. as does, on the assumption that
international law alone is the standard by which
the conduct OF Great Britain must he judged. Ac-
c0rdingly, part conians q lawyer-like statement
Of the matter referred to the arbIrat0rs. 1t Is
understood by the government OF Her Britannia Maj
esty." In tins statement It Is forcioy pointed out
that no claims lall Within the cognizance 'Of the
arbltrat0rs except claims growing OF the acts''
Of the Alabama and other vessels which, though
NOT specified, are indicated as 'iorming distinct
class" well known TO both contracting Powers.
SinCe the only vessels IN respect OF which claims
the washington treaty were the Alaoama herself,
the Florida, the Georgia and the Snenandoan, 1t Is
iurther assumed thas no other vessels WIN be the
subject OF inquiry at Geneva, and 1t Is then affirmed
categorcaliy 'that In respect Of none Of them was
there any failure in The discourage OF International
Obligations, rendering Great Britain justly liable to
make reparation to the United States." In accept
ing with reserve. the ruies Of article as govern
government properly observes that BY the
very terms OF that article the new rules are
WIN, as the aIbltrators shall determinc 10 nave
which Inc case OF Great Britain Is founded en-
bodied IN series OF general proposllions," to oe
IL mere maintained, III eject, that fde neu-
trality Is impartial and not one-sided or "benevo-
sidcrations arising from the political relation which
before the war The belgerents may have sustained
issued by belRerent government must be re-
specGed, even though its political sovereignty be
constitute a valid commission Tor "a public snip
ol war;" and The privileges winch attacn to
with much precision, while equal care has been
taken in drawing the distinction between those
acts which render neutral ports base OF hostile
operations, and those wnlcn, irrespective or their
motive or their result, are acknowledged by the
law aud practice OF nations as Legitimate opera
tiOns OF commerce. The most IMPORTANT OF these
propositions, however, are tn0se winch bear on the
cardlnal question vi ''due diigence." IL is SUB.
mltied that I'm every country wnere the executive
subject the laws foreign States have rlgnt 10
expect (A) that the laws De sucn as III the exercise
OF ordinary foresight might reasonably We deemed
adequate Q for the repression VI all acts which the
government Is under an International oolIgatlOn
to repress; (B) that so far as may be necessary
for TINS purpose, the laws be enforced and
the legal powers OF the government exercised.
where SUCH laws exist, that the Executive should
Overstep them IN particular case IN order 10 pre-
vent narm 10 foreign States or neir cl lizens; nor
that, IN prevent harm TO foreign states or
their Citizens, the Executive should act against the
persons or property Of individuals, unieSs upon ev
dence which would justify 1t In so acting II Inc IN
tereSlS 10 protected were It's own those OF It's
own clLizens." BY parity OF reason 1t Is submitted
that no government can he expected 10 employ q
higher degree OF vigilance under sense Of inter-
national obligation tnan clvlllzed governments are
over, that IN fact governments, ike Individuals,
nave usually been more sollclt0us aoout their own
Such '' are the main points OF International
law anu practice upon which, In comoina-
government gov @ resss It's It's vinalcaton. ~ No one one
can peruse the Introductory statement OF events
ne cy ana aa Of e sue
thereto by Great Britain aud other maritime
founded is Inc charge ieveed against inc srsn
government IN the American case VI "a studied un.
or 9xeG pre- ADVERSE earS 70 saS
shown for the hundredLn time That when the
Queen proc anaiion Was issued, on the l4th 0f
May, 1851, state OF war existed which 1t was nl-
possible Tor Great Britain 10 Ignore, which Prest'
dent Lincoln and Mr. seward were the first to
Doiify, and when the supreme Court OF the United
States held 10 be complete IN all respects II IS also
shown, incidentally, that at that period the United
States government took It's stand on the
perfectly untenaD.e ground, long since
abandoned by itself that vessels cruising under the
Confederate nag were 81 rates." IL IS curious tnat
even SO late as December, 1854, Mr. Seward, IN o
very Insulting note to the Brazilian Minister at
Washington, insists that Doth the Alabama and
Florida were mere ''prates," though he declines to
JUSTLY the forclDe cutting out or Tue Florida Dy
United states man oil war from The naroor OF Bahia.
Another very erinenJ TACT brought out III this part
Of the British case Is that great many armed YES
seis were fitted out In ports OF the Confederate
launched, TO when may De added the TACT tnat
above twelve hundred vessels were captured an!
destroyed by the United states Navy ior breach OF
blockade or III battle, unsuccessful as II was IN
checking the depredatons OF the Alabama and
her COnsorts. 1t IL constantly asserted IN the
American case that under the regulations made Dy
the British government, the Unned states navy was
paced at disadvantage In the ports 0 TINS country
and her colonies lne very contrary Is maintained,
by arguments which appear conclusive, IN inc Brit
isb Case Inc orders oil June 1861, closing British
ports and waters against the admission or prizes
noast Was ana the supseauent orders Of
January 81, 1862. excluding all bclgerent vessels
from the bahamas, except under stress OF weather
or by special leave, were expressly designed to de-
prive The C0nledorates Of All Invaluable naval sta
tion though these are perverted IN the Ameri.
cIhc accusations against the Colonial authorities
will doubtless be answered In the British counter
case In the meantime they are iraversed by antcl.
patton In the BRUSH case Ia language as unquali
hed as could be desired
II Is always competent according to the London
Korning Fost Tor State to release Itself from the
obligations Of q treaty by the simple expedient Of
declaring war against the c0-sgnatary, war; accord
Ing to International law, putting an end pso Jucto
TO all treaties between the beligerents. II Great
Britain does not Ike the treaty IL has made, sub
sequently should be unwilling to abide by the de.
cision OF the Tribunal OF Arbitration, 1t can, II it
pleases render the treaty or the decision nugatory
by refusing to be bound by the or oy the other,
and the event OF the United States insisting on
its treaty rights by declaring war against that repub
lic. The course Is open to the United States.
We are now speaking OF what either country do,
but what 1t should do Is obviously very different