Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1872-05-01
THE ALABAMA CLAIMS.
The Counter Case Presented by Gre:
Britain. taa1


The Counter Case Presented by Great
Britain. taa1Ut
The following IS synopsis OF the
counter case presented at Geneva by
the agent of Great Britain: .5 ae
Part one begins by announcing that
to all American imputations of hostile
motives and insincere neutrality, no
reply whatever will be offered. Eng
land distinctly refuses to enter into a
discussion of such insinuations, because
it would be inconsistent with the self
respect, irrelevant to the main issue,
and tend to infame the controversy.
England's governing desire is to fulfill,
even exceed, her international duties.
Nor will any reference be made to the
claims for indirect damages, as CORE
spondence with regard to them is pend
ing between England and the United
States England assumes that the
claims are limited to losses occasioned
by the Florida, Alabama, Georgia and
Shenandoah, but does not object to the
introduction of the names of the other
rebel cruisers added to the list by the
American case She calls attention to
the fact that none of these vessels had
previously been mentioned. No award
is possible for the depredations of the
Boston and Sallie, which are in the list,
but not mentioned elsewhere III the
United States, and were probably mad
vertently included. The Board of Ar
bitration is reminded that it's conclu-
sions must be formed on proofs, not
allegations, and the evidence must be
sifted. The statements of American
Consuls are creditable when made with
regard to facts within their personal
knowledge, but they are unreliable
when dealing with rumors. The Con-
suls of the American Government, zeal
Gus to indiscretion, shared the irrelia-
bility generated by the war, and errone
Gus views throughout the struggle, col
ored their reports. England rejects as
evidence the papers captured on the
Richmond, their authors being un-
| known. m,
Part two deals with the American ar
gument. 1t disputes the proposition
that neutral power Is bound, at the
request of belligerent, to enforce its
municipal laws and add to them if they
are insufficient. 1t admits that repara-
ton is due for an appreclable injury
resulting from clear violation of in
! ternational duty, but is unable to at
tach distinct meaning to some of the
| twelve propositions of the American
case, and demurs to the exceptionally
rigorous application made of the prop
ositions to England. 1t urges that at
/ the time of the Confederate war the
mere sale and delivery of a vessel
adapted for war to belligerents was not
violation of neutrality. Nevertheless,
on this point it accepts the rules of the
| Treaty of Washington, with the over.
! strained construction put upon them
| by the Government of the United States,
! but according to their obvious purport.
It regrets that the United States should
see fit to strain the Interpretation OF
these rules to the uttermost estimate
of occupying them in fair and rea
sonable issue. 1t argues that England
was bound to receive the Alabama as
she would vessel of war of any sov-
ereign state, and concludes by quoting
from OrtolaD, the eminent French au
thority on international law, to show
that the principles for which the United
States contend were never heretofore
seriously asserted or recognized IL
England or America. ..,..-
! Part three treats of the precedents
| adduced in the American case, and re-
plies thereto with others, such as the
flibusterlng attacks of Lopez on Cuba
and Walker on Mexico and Centra
America, and the Fenian aids on Can
ada. History on this subject is the
history of unlawful enterp ises origin
ating in America, and, vita American
citizens, American privateers have from
time to time harrassed England, Spain,
Portugal. Mexico, Central America
Cuba and Canada.
Part four considers the various com
plants made of traffic in munition o
war with the south, blockade running
by British ships, etc. ..... 100.
Part five gives history of the crrlis
ers Sumpter and Nashville, and com
plants of being required to meet de
mands in regard to which the sole diff
ficulty is to treat them as serious.
Part six gives an account of th
Florida and Alabama, with the detail
OF their escape. It seeks to show tha
the time which elapsed between Mr.
Adam s application and the Alabama
departure was too short to Justify tn
charge of negligence, and claims tina
. in this respect England cannot b
charged with any failure of duty.
, Part seven is devoted to a history o
, the Shenandoah and Georgia.
| Part eight relates to other vessels
, and repudiates the responsibility o
, Great Britain for their depredations.
}, Part nine treats OF the reception o
the rebel cruisers in British ports, an,
, seeks to defend the conduct of Grea
Britain by comparing it with that @
, other nations.
Part ten, after recapitulation of th
facts and arguments of the precedin
: parts, declares the claim for interest O.
the damages awarded from July 1st
, 1868, untenable. The losses which th
} arbitrators may take into account az
t at the the utmost those directly risin
> from the capture of ship and property
] After describing the anxiety and tn
l insecurity in which neutrals would b
2 placed in time of war, should the doc
| trlnes presented in the American cas-
as to their duties prevail, the counte
: case concludes With the expression {
3 the hope that a frank, open stateme1
5 of facts Will effectually remove ever
misunderstanding between the tw
: nations bound by innumerable ties.