Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1872-05-03
The British Counter.Case.

LONDON, April 1s.
The following is synopsis of the Coun-
ter-case presented at Geneva by the agent
on the part of Great Britain:
Part l begins by announcing that to the
American imputations of hostile motive and
insincere neutrality, no reply whatever will
be offered. England distinctly refuses
to enter into the discussion of these insinua-
tions, because it would be inconsistent with
her self respect irrelevant to the main issue
and tend to infame the controversy. En-
glands governing desire is to fulfill even eX-
ceed, her International duties, nor will any
reference be made to the claim for indirect
damages, as correspondence with regard to
them is pending between England and the
United States. England assumes that the
claims are limited to losses occasioned by
the Florida, Alabama, Georgia and Shenan-
doah; but does not object to the intro
duction of the names of nine other
rebel cruisers added to the list by
the American case She calls attention to the
fact that none Of these vessels had previous
ly been mentioned. No award is possible
for the depredatiOns of the Boston and Sallie,
which are in the list, but are not mentioned
elsewhere in the case of the United States,
and were, probably, inadvertently included.
The Board of Arbitration is reminded that
its conclusions must be formed on proofs
not allegations, and the evidence must be
siftcd. The statements of American Consuls
are credible, when made with regard to
facts within their personal knowledge, but
they are unreliable when dealing with ru-
mors. The COusuls of the American Govern
ment, Jealous TO indiscretion, shared the ir-
rtability generated by the war, and erroneous
views throughout the struggle colored their
reports. England rejects as evidence the
papers captured on the Richmond, their au-
thors being unknown.
Part deals with the American argument.
Z a ~ raj
power is bound, at request of a belligerent, to
enforce its municipal laws, and add to them if
they are insufficient. 1t admits that repara-
tiOn is due for an appreciable injury result
ing from clear violation of international
duty, but is unable to attach n distinct mean
ing to some of the twelve propositions of
the American case, and demurs to the eXcep-
tionally rigorous application made of these
propositions to England. 1t urges that, at
the time of the Confederate war, the mere
sale and delivery of vessel adapted for
war to a belligerent was not violation
of neutrality; nevertheless, on this point
it accepts the rules of the Treaty of Wash
ingtOn, not with the over-strained construc-
tion put on them by the Government of the
| United States, but according to their Obyi-
GUS purport 1t regrets that the United
States should see fit to strain the interpreta-
tiOn of these rules to their uttermost, instead
of accepting them in fair and reasonable
| sense. 1t argues that England was bound to
/ receive the Alabama as she would a vessel Of
war of any sovereign State, and concludes
/ by quoting from Ortolan, the eminent French
authority on international law, to show that
| the principles for which the United States
| contend were never heretofore seriously as
/ serted or recognized in Europe or America.
/ Part three treats of precedents adduced in
/ the American Case, and replies thereto with
! Others, such as the ilibustering attacks of
/ Lopez on Cuba, and Walker on Mexico and
] " A 4 l..
| Canada. History on this subject Is the his
/ tory of unlawful enterprises originating in
America and with American citizens. Amer
! lean priyateers have from time TO time har-
rassed England, Spain, Portugal, Mexico
| Central America, Cuba and Canada.
Part considers the various complaints
made of traffic in munitions of war with the
South, blockade-running by British ships
| etc.
Part gives history of the cruises of tho
/ Sumter and Nashville; complains of being
required to meet demands in regard to which
the sole difficulty is to treat them as serious
! Part gives an account of the Florida anC
Alabama, with details of their escape. Il
seeks to show that the time which elapsed
between Mr.. Adams application and the
Alabania's- departure was too short tC
Justify charge Of negligence, and claims
that in this respect England cannot b,
charged with any failure of duty.
Shenandoah and Georgia.
Part relates to other vessels, and repudi
ates the responsibility of Great Britain 70
their depredations.
Part treats of the reception of rebe
cruisers in British ports, and seeks TO defenC
the conduct of Great Britain by comparing /
with that of other nations.
Part 10, after recapitulating the facts an,
arguments of the preceding parts, declare
the claim for interest on damages awarde,
from July l, 1868, untenable. The losse
which the ArbitratOrs may take into accoun
are, at the utmost, those directly arlsin,
from the capture and destruction of ship
and property.
After describing the situation of anxiet
aud insecurity in which neutrals would b.
placed in time of war, should the doctrine
presented in the American Case as to thei
duties prevail, the COunter-case conclude
with an expression Of the hope that frank
open statement of facts win eifeetually re
move every misunderstanding between Tn
two nations allied by innumerable ties.
THE Mayor of Memphis gets s., 900 sal