The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-08-22
THE AMERICAN ARGUMENT.

IfrOm the supplement- 10 Tue OWES llmcs.J
We present to our readers an abstract OF the
argument before the Court of Arbitration by which
che American government support their case, and
which is offered by Messrs. Gushing, Evarts and
Waite, the distinguished counsel OF the United
States. Whatever may be the decision OF this TIL
bunal, this argument will be an enduring monu-
rnent OF the ability and research Of its authors
Part first comprises Introductory remarks
setting forth that by the fifth article OF the Treaty
Of Washington 1t is provided that the agent OF each
party shall deliver to the Court written or printed
argument showing the points and reference Of EVIL,
cordance with this provision Messrs. Caleb Cush.
ing, William n. Evarts and M. r. Waite received
instructions to prepare the argument to be pre-
The volumes Of proofs which have been presented
with the case and counter-case, 1t is assumed pre-
sent not only oil the materials necessary useful
for the complete intelligence and just determination
OF the great controversy, but have In a measure
reduced the disputation between the parties within
definite and established limits. Counsel say that to
ascertain these limits, verify them and to confne
the subsequent discussion rigidy within them is
The second part part contains an exposition Of
the origin, history and nature Of the pend
Ang controversy between =, The tass two countries
When the tfeat social 1SSI and political interests
developed by the institution OF slavery carried
their popular agitaohs beyond the p. bounds OF
ment OF the United States it was not long before
great population, occupying large territory, was
The principles Of the law Of nations recognize the
necessity which the vigor and magnitude Of rebel
hostilities may impose upon the government OF a
nation and attribute to 1t resort to Its belgerent
Other nations are, manifestly, no parties to the
conflict, and cannot become such parties unless
by choice, which is intervention, or their actual
course forcing upon their notice such questions as
specifically arise Tor solution,
The erect OF Intervention Is unequivocal II at.
tempted in aid OF the belligerent sovereign, but
welcome. II In aid Of the rebels against the SOW.
treign It's an espousa Of their cause and an act Of
war against the belligerent sovereign: In such
Daee, no situation OF neutrality arises. But II q
nation abstains from intervention in the conhict
between sovereign nation and Its rebels It is In
accurate to treat this abstinence as neutrality 1t
IL simply on unbroken maintenance Of friendly re-
cations between two Powers 1t would shock the
moral sense Of civilization to speak Of the United
and the sepOy rebellion In India, or OF Great Britain
as standing neutral between the Commune Of Paris
and the government OF France.
In the nrst moments OF the conflict and when its
complement % domestic rebellion within the
q e uhed a. states tat no was
government, Great Britain interviewed and as
stunned, BY an act Of sovereignty, exercised by the
tive Of the nation IN its foreign relations, to exalt
the rebel hostiities to the same level with
The sSgesn sights s Of the n Snsd . states
the same attitude in reference to the conflict as If
4 we're public war waged BY two nations Great
any choice to respect their belgerent operations
and maintain neutrality:
the 18th Nay 1857 sss purely 'D Vol 81
Entary 1t was not ., required NH, m the
ned saes FSe e1seGe Of sr sV
within the territory Of nation certainly does not
GAN for proclamation from other Powers that they
90 not espouse the cause Of either party to this do
BELLIoERENr RIGHTS.
30 long as the rebellion remained unaccredited
ra in ito
9ame would have borne the legal character ofprati-
bal violence and robbery. With protested pirates
s'1hey are outlawed by the law Of nations"
6o too, all commercial contracts, including the
vessels and so forth, are absolutely Condemned as
immoral in the law or England, and are prescribed
The interpretation OF the Queens proclamation re-
ueved from the terrible prescription, pursuit and
punishment thus denounced all who should take
the seas In aid Of the rebellion against the United
This public act Of the government Of Great Britain
opened TO the minds OF the British people entirely
pew relations, political and legal, with the pending
hosttties, and was followed by an active, constant
and systematic contribution from their inexhausti-
OF the deficiencies OF the rebels and in reduction
81 the disparity OF strength between them and their
There Is definite and unequivocal evidence show.
ing that the powerful and effective contributions of
British aid did not spring from the spon-
pulses Of mercantile adventure or cupidity.
They were induced, stimulated and directed by
the authority Of the rebel administration, repre-
eented by established agents within the territory
Df Great Britain. 1t was this system which is justly
described In the case OF the United States as
equivalent to using Great Britain as ''the Arsenal
the Navy Yard and the Treasury Of the Insurgent
II the actual method and agencies OF these dis
we're mus Inv, manifest the MAGNITUDE and per
United states are also indisputable.
CORRESPONDENTS.
inc course OF the public correspondence between
PUG Two governments disclosed SO wide difference
20 the estimates which the two governments placed
upon the rights and duties of satisfaction and in
0emnlty for the injuries the United States have
seunered, and for which they are demanding re-
dress, as TO produce a situation Of the greatest
s5s satyeo a fqom difficulty The United states
which, as Vattel expressedit "a nation prosecutes
i1 right by force, yet, unappeased complaints, Of
against Great Britain, do not easily pass into OBJ
iivion without some form OF adjudication. W.
BY amcabe negotiations, which have prodnced
the Treaty OF Washington the claims and sal STAG.
ton which the United States insist upon and Great
britain contests have been submitted to the award
From the arrangements OF the Treaty It
ia apparent That the claims are all preferred
as nation against nation; that the authority OF
vthe tribunal Is absolute and final and that by force
OF this treaty the controversy between the two
Nations arising out OF the conduct Of Grea, Britain,
The third part of the argument contains con.
y, Sted and logical summary Of the whole contro
wa ~ pttWStu tue Two COuutTics. III tHc uIst III
stuNe, the United States maintain, as a matter Of
fac That the British government was guilty OF want
Of clue nlligence-that is OF cupable negligeDcein
per Uniting or In not preventing the construction,
eqniplnent manning or arming OF Confederate
cruisers In ports OF Great Britain her colonies
and that such acts constituted violations OF inter-
national obligations. And, In the second place,
shat the British government DID permit or
suffer the use Of Its ports Or waters as the
And thirdly, that the British government did not
eA ercise due diligence In its own ports and waters
ana as to oil persons within Its jurisdiction to pre-
vent ny violation OF its aforesaid obligations and
duties IS respects the United States
LEGAL ARGUMENT.
To these .-eclamatons the British government In
1ta case and countercase, responds. First, taking
issue with the United States on the question OF
imputed negligence or disregard OF the rules OF