Mower County transcript. [volume] (Lansing, Minn.) 1868-1915, 1872-04-25
THE ALABAMA CLAIMS.
The Counter Case Presented by CIR,
Britain.

AHA ID ANA
The Counter Case Presented by Grea,
Brdt0tns
The following is q synopsis of the
counter case presented at Geneva by
the agent of Great Britain:
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 inflame the controversy.
EngIand's governing desire is to fulfill,
even exceed, her international duties.
Nor will any reference be made to the
claims for indirect damages, as corre-
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 othe,
rebel cruisers added to the list by the
American case. She calls attention tc
the fact that none of these vessels haG
previously been mentioned. No award
is possible for the deprailations of the
Boston and Sallie, which are in the list,
but not mentioned elsewhere in the
United States, and were probably mad
vertently included. The Board of Ar.
b;tration is reminded that it's conclu.
sions must be formed on proofs, not
allegations, and the evidence must be
sifted. The statements of American
CoDsuls 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
ous to indiscretion, shared the irrelia:
bility generated by the war, and errone
GUS views throughout the struggle, col.
ored their reports. England rejects at
evidence the papers captured on the
Richmond, their authors being un.
known.
Part two deals with the American ar.
gument. It disputes the proposition
that neutral power Is bound, at the
request of be1ligerent, to enforce ite
municipal laws and add to them if they
are insufficient. It admits that repara.
tion is due for an appreclable injury
resulting from o 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 al
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,
1t regrets that the United States should
see fit to strain the interpretation o1
these rules to the uttermost estimate
of occupying them in q fair and rea
sonable issue. It argues that England
was bound to receive the Alabama as
she would q vessel of war of any SOY.
ereign state, and concludes by quoting
from Ortolan, the eminent French au.
thority on international law, to show
that the principles for which the United
States contend we're never heretofore
seriously asserted or recognized in
England or America.
Part three treats of the precedents
adduced in the American case, and re-
plies thereto with others, such as the
flibustering attacks of Lopez on Cuba,
and Walker on Mexico and Central
America, and the Fenian aids on Can
ada. History on this subject is the
history of unlawful enterp ises origin
ating in America, and, wita 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 of
war with the south, blockade running
by. British ships, etc.
Part five gives history of the cruis-
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 the
Florida and Alabama, with the details
of their escape. It seeks to show that
the time which elapsed between Mr..
Adams application and the Alabama's
was too short to Justify the
charge of negligence, and claims that
in this respect England cannot be
charged with any failure of duty.
Part seven is devoted to a history of
the Shenandoah and Georgia.
Part eight relates to other vessels,
and repudiates the responsibility of
Great Britain for their depredations.
Part nine treats OF, the reception of
the rebel; oI1siets in British ports, and
seeks to defend the conduct of Great
Britain by comparing it with that Of
other nations.
Part ten, after q recapitulation of the
facts and arguments Of the preceding
parts, declares the claim for interest on
the damages awarded from July LIST,
1863, untenable. The losses which the
may take into account are
at the the utmost those directly rising
from the capture of ship and property.
After describing the anxiety and the
in which .neutrals would be
placed in time of war, should the doc
trines presented in the American case
as to their duties prevail, the counter
case concludes With the expression of
the hope that q frank, open statement
of facts will effectually remove every
misunderstanding between the two
bound by innumerable ties.
Curicus Prayer.