The New York herald., 1872-08-13


The secrecy enjoined upon the members Of
the Geneva Court of Arbitration on the Ala
bama claims appears to have been SO faithfully
observed that tho reports we have received
from time to time of the proceedings OF the
tribunal since the last authorized announce
ment of it's work, have been accepted at the
best az rumors only We have had from
Washington periodically stereotypcd state
ment that everything is progressing favorably
| for our side, and that the result when reached
is certain to be highly satisfactory TO the
United States But then we have remem-
bered the official assurances sent forth from
! the same source pending the indirect claims
controversy, assuring the American people that
our government was resolved to stand firmly
by our original case. and that our representa-
tives before the Court were instructed to insist
upon the consideration and decision of our
claims for indirect damages. This recollec-
ton has caused US to receive the rose-colored
semAof6cial reports of the progress of the arhi-
tration with some grains Of allowance We have
also heard from time TO time through Geneva
and London kilograms of results that have
been reached by the Court, and in some in
stances we have been informed of the exact
amount OF claims awarded on certain vessels
Since the temporary adjournment of the tribu-
nal, however, the most important information
that has yet reached us is that contained in the
HERALD special dispatches from Geneva pub
lshed yesterday and supplemented by the
press report which appears in our columns
this morning. From these it is to be in
ferred that the actual question Of the amount
of claims has not yet been reached, but that
the discussion hitherto has been ON the points
covering the primary issue of England's liza
bility Our special correspondent states that
the argument before the recess was arranged by
the Court and covered three points: First as
to what is meant by ''due diligence" on the
part of nation as principle of law. Second,
what was the value of the commissions held
by the Confederate cruisers and how far did
they entail responsibility on England when
they entered her ports? Third how far did
the coaling of the cruisers in English ports
make England responsible for their actsP
All these points relate 10 England's liability,
and nothing is said to show how they have
been decided, if, indeed, decision has yet
been reached upon them. The report from
Geneva published to-day confirms our special
in the statement that lengthy discussions had
taken place regarding Englands RESPONSE
bility, the argument turning mainly
upon the questions whether England had exer-
cised ''due diligence" to prevent the escape Of
A. e. L. Jxv1, oxlo oh
sponsibility as we claim did actually follow
upon the permission to the cruisers to coal at
British stations. But there is one additional
piece of information that may be significant
namely, thst Mr.. Cohen. the English barrister
who drew up the report for the Grown on the
subject of the American claims for losses sus-
tanned by the mercantile marine Of the United
States, has been summoned from London to
Geneva. From this it is conjectured that q
decision has been rendered by the Board on
the general question, and that Mr.. Cohen has
been called in to assist the British counsel in
arguing on the amount Of damages to be as
sessed by the Board
The points stated by our special corre-
spondent as having been argued by desire of
the Court are raised upon the three rules laid
down in the Treaty of Washington for the
guidance Of neutral governments and agreed
to be taken as applicable to the cases of the
confederate schooners. The first of these
rules makes it the duty of. neutral to use
''due diligence to prevent the fitting out,
arming, equipping or departure of such vessels
intended to be used against Power with which
it is at peace Upon this England raises the
legal question, What is due diligence? The sec
ond rule forbids neutral Power from allowing
either belligerent to use its ports or waters as
the base OF naval operations or for the renewal
of supplies or arms or the recruitment of men,
and the third requires the neutral to use all
due diligence in its own ports and waters, and
as TO all persons within its jurisdiction to pre-
vent any violation of the foregoing obligations
and duties. Upon these rules England raises
the legal questions, What was the value Of the
Confederate commissions? that is to say, were
they really commissions or mere waste paper
how far did cruisers thus commits
stoned entail responsibility upon Eng
land when they entered her ports and how
far did the coaling of the cruisers in English
ports, supposing the former questions to be
decided adversely to the English argument,
make England responsible for their acts? It
is evident from this that England is fighting
her way against any payment at all for direct
claims inch by inch, and that having, by q
successful course of brow-beating and by su-
perior craftsmanship, shaken off the threaten
;p, danoer of indirect clnima abe now seeks
by every legal bubble that can be thought of
by sharp lawyers to evade the responsibility
for actual losses inflicted upon our citizens by
the Anglo-C Confederate pirates.
IL may be said that this is oil fair enough,