The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1872-04-22
THE GENEVA BOARD.
4 FRANK Ind OPEN SETTLEMENT OF
EICTI.
THE GENEVA ARBITRATI0N.
Synopsis OF the Counter-case OF Great
Britain.
The following is a synopsis of the counter
statement presented at Geneva on the part of

SIabELuSAb R4OoShsSu 81 NSASS
Great Britain :
Part first begins by announcing that to the
American imputation OF hostile motives and
insincere neutrality no reply whatever will be
offered. England distinctly refuses 10 enter
Into a discussion of those insinuations, because
1t would be inconsistent with her selt-respecE,
irrelevant to the main Issue, aud teno 70 H.
fine controversy. Englands governing DE,
sire is to fulfil, ever exceed, her international
duties. Nor will any reference be made to
the claims for Indirect damages, as correspon-
deuce 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 Shenandoah, but does not
object OF the Introduction of nine other rebel
cruisers added to the ltst. None of these YES
SELL had previously been mentioned. No
award is possible for the depredatioDs of the
Boston and sallle, which are in the list not
mentioned elsewherein the case OF the United
States, and were probably inadvertently In;
cluded. The board of arbltrators Ia reminded
that It's conclusions must be formed on proofs,
not allegations, and that the evidence must
be sifted. The statements of American con-
suls are credible when made In regard TO facts
within their personal knowledge; but they are
unreliable when dealing with rumors. The
to indiscretion, shared the irritabtlfty gene
rated BY the war, and erroneous views
throughout the struggle colored their reports.
England rejects as evidence the papers cap
tured ON the Rosamond, their authors being
unknown.
ment, disputes the propositions that q neutral
power Is bound, at The request OF a belliger-
emit, to enforce the municipal laws and add to
them if they are insufficient. 1t admits that
PREPARATION Is due for appreciable injury re-
sulling from a clear violation Of international
-, I,k L. ,,~ahta n ottanh 1toffnnf m 90 min n
to some of the twelve propositions OF the
American case, and demurs to the exception
ally rigorous application made OF these pro-
positions to England. 1t urges that at the
lime of the Confederate war the mere sale
and delivery Of q vessel adapted for war TO q
be!ligerent was not a violation OF the treaty.
Nevertheless, On this point 1t accepts the rules
of the Treaty of Washington, not with the
over-strained construction put upon them 6y
the United States, but according TO their oo-
vious purport. It regrets that the united
Stat, should strain the Interpretation OF these
ful.s to the uttermost, Instead OF accepting
them In q fair and reasonable sense. 1t
argues that England was bound to receive the
Alabama as she woulda vessel of war OF any
sovereign power, and concludes by quoting
from Ortolan, the eminent French authority
on International law, to show that the prin-
ciples for which the United States contend
wess neye. heretofore seriously asserted OF
kCCL ~ Cu " u 1hASk4SS
Part third treats of the preceuents advanced
in The American case, and replies thereto with
others such as the. dlibustering attacks OF Lo-
peg on Cuba, and Walker on Mexico and Cen
iEal America, and the Fenian raids on Canada.
history on this subject Is the history OF un-
lawful enterprises originating in America, and
with American citizens. The American prtVa-
.teeIs have from time to time harassed Eng
land, Spain, Portugal, Mexico, Central Amer1-
ca, Cuba and Canada. -
Part fourth considers the various complaints
made Of traffic in munitions of war with the
South. blockade running oy British ships. &c:
Part fth gives the history OF the cruises OF
the Sumter and Nashville, and complains OF
being required to meet demands In regard TO
which the sole difficulty Is to treat them as
serious.
Part sixth gives an account of the Florida
and Alabama, with details OF their escape; IL
seeks to show that the time which elapsed be-
tween Mr.. Adams application and the Ala
bama's departure was too short to justify the
charge of negligence, and claims that. In this
respect, England cannot be charged with any
failure of duty.
Shenandoah and Georgia.
pudiates the responsibility of Great Britain
for their depreciation.
Part ninth treats of the reception of rebel
cruisers In British ports, and seeks to defend
the conduct of Great Britain by comparing
1t with that OF other nations.
Part tenth, after recapltulatlng the facts and
arguments OF the preceding parts, declares
the claim for interest on the damages from
July lst, 1878, untenable. The losses which
the arbitrators may take into account are, at
the utmost. those directly arising from the
capture and destruction Of ships and property.
Alter describing the situation, anxiety and
insecurity In which neutrals would be placed
in time Of war, should the doctrines present
ed In the American case as to their duties
prevail, the counter case concludes with the
expression of a hope that q frank, open state
ment OF the facts will efectually remove every
misunderstanding between nations allied by
innumesable ties.
COMMENTS OF H PRESS.
The Times describes the British counter
case as couehed In a grave and statesmanllke
spirit, while the American case reads like an
advocates speech to q jury In q trial Of assault
and battery. England's reply Is like the ut
terance of q Judge.
TIE Daily Telegraph says: 1.-THE Americans,
STUD ying with impartiallty our counter case,
will find reason to fear not only for their In
direct claims, but for something more. In
stance upon instance of over-statement and
inconsistency Is brought against them until
their great fabric of laborious ingenuity trem-
bles to It's foundation"
THE CLAIMS CONFESSION.
WASHINGTON, April 81.