The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-01-29
ENGLAND AND AMERICA.
The American Claims Against England-The
Cruisers for Whose Acts Great Britain is
TO BE Held Responsible

Cruisers for Whose Acts Great Britain is
TO BE Held Responsible.
from the London Times, Jan. 1871
IL has been assumed in the British case TO be laid
before the arbltrators at Geneva tnat no pecuniary
claim would be made by the United states govern
ment In respect of any vessels except the Alabama
herself, the Florida, the Georgia ana the Shenan-
doah. the ground Of this assumption was the fact
that such claim had Deen expressly put Tor.
ward during the civil war, or during the period
OF SIX years which mas since elapsed. No assume
tion, however could be more delusive. In Part V.
OF the American list Is given Of 'the cruisers
for whose acts the United States ask this tribunal to
hold Great Britain responsible" IN what purports TO
chronological order. They are as follows 1.-THE
Sum ter the Nashville the Florida and her tenders,
the Clarence, the Tacony the Arcner; the Alaba
and her tender, the ruscalo osa; the Reributlon
theGeorgia, the Tallahassee the Chicamau2a and the
instance the United States interpret the RESPONSE
blty OF Great Britain as extending not Only
to he oI poss 70 Sn
We are called upon to pay for the expense or
pursuing al these cruisers the increase IN the
vessels, 'the transfer OF the American commercial
marine to the British ag'' and the general cost OF
bama ana twelve other vessels here enumerated
may have contributed to prOlong 1t. IL Is not even
armed III British ports, the fact being that both the
Sumter and Nashville not to spaak of others. issued
the other from Charleston. What is commended is
that anu all received at least excessive hos
british governmental hospitality which Is un-
favoraoly con trasted with the harshness and dis
the Neutrality laws against the United s,a1es
navy. Some complaints OF this kind, espe-
are incidentally noticed in the Introductory part OF
the British CASE Others viii have to be met in the
the present, it win be convenient to separate the
charges IN respect OF the Florida Georgia and Sne
nandoah from all the rest, and TO recapitulaoe very
briefly the material facts concerning each, as
stated IN the American and the British case re-
The Florida was a vessel manifestly designed for
warike purposes, laid down IN the Aersey about
peted four months earlier and tooK her fina DE-
parture under the name Of the Oreto on the 22d Of
March, 1862 Unlike the Alabama, however, she
duly registered as British vessel and cleared for
Palermo and Jamaica. Mr.. Adams conveyed to
preston that she was lnrendec Tor a Confederate
privateer; but this impression Was supported by
examiners reported their belief that she was as she
prOfessed to be, destined for the Italian govern
ment. All the world now knows how erroneous
their belief was and, with this later know
ledge on Its SIDE the United states government
speaks OF the inquiry as mockery. Yet it IS GER
tain that none OF the crew neWathat which IS now
represented as matter OF common motor ETY., and,
| what IS more, when they found it out at Nassau,
where she arrived on April 20, they refused TO pro.
coed further on their voyage. At Nassau she at
mately seized BY order q the Governor.
| Proceedings were then commenced against
9Sat acts Seyond the Colonial
JURISDICTION was admissible and she was released by
judicial decree on Inc "a OF August: TINS ruling
erroneous, but there Is n0tnng whatever TO justify
the wholesale imputatons Of partially cast upon
the Governor, the Court the law officers and all
| the civil authorities OF the colony, IN tins part
| OF the American case. Having sailed from Nassau
unarmed, with such hands could he obtained, she
| afterwards received her armament OIL another or
the Bahama Islands, visited Cardenas, cuba, aud
on the 4th OF september ran the blockade INTO Mo.
! bile. The American case passes very lgntly over
THIS stage In her career merely relating that dur
4 tyOf ina ntnhf nf fhn nf Inn I'M
! rida lett Mobe.n Tlle British case, on the other
hand, calls attention to the extraordinary negligence
| OF the blockading squadron, through which she
twice passed. and brings out the maleria TACT that
40 eiore committing any hostlites against vessels
OF citizens OF the United states she sailed for ana
| entered port OF the Confederates, where sne
manned during more than four MONTHS and was
and from whence she was finally sent out to
cruise" The remaining articles OF charge affecting
Of Of coanx and repairing alleged 10 have been al.
| fOrded her al Nassau, Barbados and Bermuda in
OF e. @ e Of s pSns
here raised appear 10 US trivial in the extreme,
Others deserve more serious reply but II win be
! disclose q substantive ground OF complaint under
the rules Of the Washington Treaty
IL will not be necessary to review IN detail the
history OF the Georgia and the Shenandoah neither
Of. which, according TO the statement of Her
| Degree wlthin the domintons OF Her Majesty,
ntted out, armed or equipped for war, or specially
| British government positively dsavows having
possessed any knowledge whateve ABOUT her before
| the receipt OF q mole from Mr. Adams, dated
April g. 1858, by which time she had lett the Clyde
several days and was taking IN her armament Off
the coast OF France. The shenandoah was an ordi-
nary merchant vessel, which had made q trading
voyage to New Zealand ana China; nor was her real
destination suspected by the officers and men VINO
shipped in ner when she left the port Of London,
under her original name OF the Sea
King, IN October, 1854. In fact, all ex-
cept three or four quilted ner on nnding
the position into which they had been enrapped
by the captain, who took III warlike stores In POr-
tugucse waters from steamer called the LAUREL
and then made over the Sea King to an armed
party OF Confederate sailors from the same YES.
sell 1t Is, OF course, easy TO say that both
the Georgia and Shenandoah were "nOiori0nsly"
fitted out within British jurisdiction to cruise
against the United States but 1t VIII not be so easy
to prove IL, and so far as they are concerned, we
may confidently anticipate an acquittal OF The British
ton will remain whether breach OF neutrality was
involved In subsequently admitting such vessels TO
British ports as lawfully commissioned men f-war,
or I'm the failure to institute proceedings against all
the guilty partes-fOr some were actually prosecuted
by order OIL the government. In Short the arbtrators
Will In this, IN many 0tner instances, be required
to decide between Two entirely conflicting doctrines,
the one Of when, hitherto accepted bv neutral
States and notably Dy America limits the obligation
OF neutrality IN time OF war 10 preventive meas
ures wnle the other extends 1t to active measures
prOited by an abuse OF the neutral territory, and
all who may nave aided aud Allotted him.
C0nslde ring now severely American commerce
suffered during the war we cannot De surprised nat
q stric'er view OF neutral liabilities than has
governed The practice OF the United states govern