New-York tribune., 1872-04-23
PUBLIC SENTIMENT II EvGLAN

tonight that they should question the Government
tomorrow to whether it was prepared 20 rit-
Parliament and the country assurance that flr.ier
proceedings before the Geneva Board for the Arhi-
tratiQn of the Alabama Claims viii be suspended un-
less the claims FOR indirect damagcs are Withdrawn
and abandoned by the Government Of the ra.tcd
States
In the Upper House. Lord Oraumore wanted al
the papers produced. and also the minute g tho
conversations accompanying the presentation of tl'
British counter case al Geneva. The record he be.
leved would prove humiiacing 20 the country. Hs
declared il degrading 70 ask the American Gov
eminent any question as to the pr0priety Of Greal
Britain presenting the counter case.
Earl Granville replied that there had been
degradation. He described his Conversations with
Mr.. Schenck the American Minister as entirely per
sOnal. Mr.. Schenck agreed to ask tie Government
at Washington its Of the proprety Of the pre-
sentation by Great Britain vi her counter case and
accompanying document at Geneva. To NE .nqCiry
no answer bad been received.
TEXT OF THE AMERICAN COUNTER CASE.
WASHINGTON, April -. - The President to-day
transmitted for the information OF the senate copy
of the counter case Of the United states iu ths
matter Of the claims against Great Britain presented
to the Board of Arbitration az Geneva, follows:
The fourth article Of the Treaty Washington permits
each party within Our months after the 0cNery oF the
to deliver in duplicate to the arbtrat0rs and 70 c
agent OF the other party counter case and additional
documents, correspondence ard evidence reply the
documents correspondence and evidence produced
by the other party. Awaiting themselves OF this right
the United States present this their counter
together with additional documents, correspondence ard
evidence reply the case, documents, correspond
ence and evidence submitted by Her Majesiys
Government In laying this counter case be-
fore the Tribunal OF Arbitration, they deem It
proper to premise that they do not consider
Il within tie province Of this paper discuss all the
propositions within the British case, which they regnrd
justly disputab.e requiring argumeuatve discus
SION so Ear the positions taken by Her Maiesty's
Government IL It's case may vary from those which the
United States had the honor 70 lay before the tribunal
in their they respectfully refer 20 that document
expression OF the views which they regard
ported by sound principles OF and by the acqui
OF other powers, and by fhe writings Of Pub-
cists OF authority so far too cOnesaons Of ques
OF fact raised between be parties their respect
I've cases. and the supporting evidence either SIDE
renewal Of the contest n the counter woui
be superfuous the United states, therefore. refer
their original case for their and estimates u
the contested matters Of fact II has seemed a.
them 10 be IA accOrdaDce with the spirit Of
the Treaty and with the lence Of the tribunal
thus the counsel the general analysis and
discussion Of these matters, far they shall prove
important in Their bearing upon the substantial
will be prepared by them submission under The fth
article OF the Treaty aud IN such oral arguments any,
the tribunal express wish 10 hear. Bscrv ng.
therefore, their rights and the freedom OF their m
these respects, they ask the attention Of the tribunal to
the following upon OF the points
Of difference between the and other matter sub
nitted on the part Of Her Maiestys Government and
those subm tied Oh the par OF tie United States
ERRORS IN BRITISH CASE.
Certain errors Of which through the of
Her Naiestys Government nrst claim attention:
FIRST. Il j. assumed that that the Rebels Of the
United states were ~ her Majesty's Proclamation ot
May @. Isci invested with underlined political
tbutcs United states have hitherto understood
that Her Maesty's Government merely Assumed
gard persons who resisted The power Of the United
States body OF nsurrectionists who might be re
cosulzod clothed with begerent rights at the dscr
tion o neutral powers They therefore. think oughr
conclude that frequent IN the British case ot
language implying recognized political attributes IN tbc
iusurTectiOu i AZ lnadvertence
Second: Her Mgjesty's Government assume that the
rctamatious of the United states are counned
claims growing out OF the acts OF the Florida. the Ala
baIna the Georgia. and the Shenandoah The claiins
growing OF she acts of the other vessels named IN th
American regarded by tine United States s.'
embraced within the terms " the Treaty They form
part OF the claims generally known as the AaDam..
Claims" They enumerated IN the fourth oi series
i've volumes printed by order VI the senate of tr
UUited states when are part Oh ue oeAtnfhs' oolF
spOndence. and evidence submitted WITH the case OF IN"
United states. These volumes, when tnas COZ
OF the United ssates against Great Britain
H. 4
library OF the Foreign Office at London before Her Ma
iestv's Hg Commissioners received their sStructionr
may be SAID without proprety that, under the
same title they the table OF the JOINT High
Commission during the negotiations which preceded the
conclusion the Treaty. The United states therefore,
while resseriing their construction OF the angace "f
the Treaty In this respect feel that they have she night
ask the arhiraiOrs assume hat Her hJesiys High
Commissioners had notice or and aequlesced IN aat
structon. Tie United States AT ossto understand
why several oh introduced into the British
case which apparently aim 10 limit the operation OF tho
sTruetiSn which are suggested Her Majesty Govern
ment intend % ask for "A modification change la thoo
rules the United states cannot too strongly pntesi
FOURTH II is averred in several places that OF IN.
acts OF which the United states complain were com
ped by American citizens IL these statements are
Introduced purpose urging this fact
cuse for the negligence OF Her Mesys onciais or Tor
viii ask the tribunal 70 take note that the "Amcrcan
referred criminals Ia the eye OF
the time when they elevated t0 the
OF recognized begerents against the United satrs by
the OF Her MaIesty's Government act whi,l
United States did participate, and against
therefore, be impossible pute United
any consequences OF responsibility for the conduct of
the persons thus described American citizers"
THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES oP NEUTRAIs.
ii. Her Majesty's Government has also stated. IN
terms. many propositions. OF law, OF fac.
Of mixed law and fact for the convenience
the Arbitrators. The United call attention To
some Of the leading points Of difference between the
two cases with the reservation heretofore made ~
TO the points not noticed anu as Ia the rights OF
counsel
lgerent who has wronged q neutral ~ violating s s"v
ereignty, and by forcing 10 part Indirectly IN
nevertheless, by some ,uOsequcnt aet such
commissioning without the dcou Of the neutral
vessel OF mpyopcriy constructed Within ts iuTis
dctioa, deprive the neutral OF the right O taking cogni
ges, be lost by the at Vi
the offending bellgerHn