Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1872-04-23
THE ALABAMA CLAIMS.
Text Of the American Counter
case, as Transmitted to the
Senate by the Presi:
dent.
A Fishy DOcUment--The Terrible
Confederate Cruisers set Sail
ing Again by the Power
Of Diplomatic
Wind.
The Ghosts of Southern Priya-
teerS Called up from the Vastly
Deep Of Official Must and
Dust-AnOther Chap
ter in an Endless
Controversy.

dent to-day transmitted Tor information
I TO the Senate copy of the counter
case of the United States in favor of tn,
claims against Great Britain, presented
/ by the Board of Arbitration at Geneva
It concludes as follows:
The United States concur with Her Majesty
Government in the opinion that claim upoT
the part Of belligerents TO be indemnifed a
the expense OF neutrals for losses inflicted o.
OccasiOned by any ordinary operations Of war
is one which involves great considerations
and requires 70 be weighed with the utmOs
care. Without the explanatory observation
which Her Majestys Government reserves
the right to make in the later stage of the pro
eeedings, they cannot say how far they do ol
do not concur in the further statement, anC
that compensation can only justly be awarded
/ by the tribunal in respect 10 losses, of which
] the negligence Of neutrals Is the direct and
proximafe cause. II appears to them, how
ever, that certain general considerations may
/ reasonably be assumed by the arbitrator
Ffrst-BOth parties contemplate that tbs
United States will endeavOr TO establish in
these proceedings some tangible connection
of cause and effect between mi uries, for which
they viii ask compensation, and acts com.
mifted by several vessels which the treaty
contemplates are 10 be shown TO be the founl
Of these Injuries.
second-Ihe tribunal Of arbitration being G
Judicial body, and invested by parties with
functions necessary for the determining OF
issues between them, and being now seized OF
the substance Of the matter in dispute, will
hold itself bound by such reasonable and es.
tablished rules Of law regarding the relation
of cause and effect, as il may assume and that
into their engagement 10 make this refer
enee.
Third-Neither party contemplates that the
Iie 4, VII e, s0gsTheG sfi ~
on one hand tend to release neutrals
from their duty TO observe strict neu-
trality, or on the other hand viii make q
course Of honest neutrality burdensome, leay-
ing new issues raised by the case and counter
cases Of the two governments TO the argu-
ments Of the counsel and 70 the decision OF
the tribunal The United states repeat, with
strengthening conviction, the language with
which they closed their case: THAT il is the
highest interest Of the two great powers which
appear al this bar that the causes Of the dif-
ference which have arisen between them
should be speedily and forever set at rest
The United states entertains confident eXpec-
tatious that her Majesty's Government viii
concur with them in this opinion.
The fourth article Of the Treaty Of Wash
T5niSs after the delivery OF the case, to de-
liver in duplicate to the arbitratOrs and to the
agent OF the other party counter cases and ad-
dftional documents correspondence and evil
dsnce In replv 10 cases, documents, correspon-
dence And evidence presented by the other
party. AYailing themselves Of this right, the
United states present this as their counter
case, together with additional documents,
correspondence and evidence IN reply 10 the
case documents correspondence and evil
dence submitted by Her MaJesty's govern
tribunal of arbitration, they deem II proper
10 premise that they do not consider II within
the province or ms paper 70 olseuss all M pI,oP-
regard as justly disputablel or requiring argu-
nenfatfye discussion. 50 far as the positions
taken by Her Majesty goyeFnpeni, a1 INT; IN rs
states had the honor 70 lay before the Irlbu-
nal In their case, they respectfully reler
70 that document for an EXPRESSION ,,. OF
sound principles Of reason and by acqules-
ence OF other powers, and by writings OF pup
licists Of authority 20 iaI io9 a. t
parties on their respective cases. ana support
ing evidence on either side, mere renew al
OF eontestatlon lR ls s2eltsI Is ws - W. ~
to their original case for their views aud es-
tirnates of contested matters OF TACT, II has
seemed 10 tSem 10 be more IN accordance Win
the spirit OF the treaty, and with the con-
vszafeuce OF the trtlEnal thus 10 reserve LOr
the eoanssl the general analysis ana discus
sion Of these matters so iar as t.ey snall 4
prove important IN their bearing on the
substantial controversy between the parties,
in the agreement which will be prepared
by them for submission nnuet me hllh atiloi y y
AZ the treaty, and IN such Cral arguments II
any ng the tribunal may eEpIe7s 3 Wlsh 70
hear. ReseTVing, therefore, tAeiE rights ana
the freedom OF their counsel IA thess Iy-lesSs'
they ask the attention Of the tribunal 10 the
following observations on some OF the main
points OF difference between TAG case and the
ether matter submitteo on me part ~ t1eI t1eII
on the part Of the United STATES. ieFtaln er-
rors Of sense which run through Tue eese OF
Her Msjesty's government nrst claim atteHT
First-It Is assumed 10 that case that the
rebels OF the United states were BY her
Majssty's proclamation OF the Ihifd OF Nay,
Isfl INFESTED with some und6dned political
attribute; but the United States have hitherto
understood th6t Her Matesty's government
m erely assumed 10 TsEsrd the persons VINO
rsSis,.. ID the power OF thh pptted states as
IeslssS iS- = Insurgents who might be Recognized
ss -iofhed with belligerent rights 81 tie ais
erefion OF leu tral powers. They, therefore,
think they oqghl " So cas =, iagnas fS 1s i5
piyine recognized political attributes IN IN
snrrecfioilisfs Is an fnadverteiice.
second-Her Maiesty's goverdEqent assume
,be5 ne deeIsrsffons OF the UniteS states are
10 be confined to claims growing opt 81 ethef
vessels named in the American case which are
regarded by the United state - als2 en- Sls
part of the claims generally known e lne
Alabama claims. They are sHumerated IL tile
fourth Of the 9ys yoqne PIi bie ~ G55ei age ~
PPS5 PSL5r Evidence S ene sabmitIed with the case
Of the United states, dness s EoldiIei' s9ltiiIs5
ssClaims Of the United stetes against 0reft
Britain" It is believed that under that tltle
they were in the library Of the aoTsign once
missioners received their Instructions. II
may also be said, without imPropr1ety, that
the Joint High Commission during Its ne
gotiation which preceded the conclusion OF
the treaty. The United States, Therefore,
while reasserting their construction q the
language OF the treaty in this regard, feel they
have the right to ask the arDitr6tors 70 assume
thai Her Majesty's High Commissioners nad
notice Of end acquiesced in that construction.
The United States are at a loss 10 understand
WHY several obGeryations are introduced into
the British case which apparently ein
saiR = % ~ s. 1fsncpiss 0Grsi Il he constr1ctions @
which are suggested BY her M6sesty's Govern
ment are intended 70 ask for modification
or change in those rules, the Unltea States
cannot too strongly protest against II.
Fourfh-It is averred in several places that
some Of ths acts Of which the United states
complain were committed By American GU,
zens II these Etatements are introduced lci
he purpose OF urging this fact as en- excuse
foF Negligence OF her Assestys Officials, or toi
any other supposed reseyanl purpose, ths
United States viii ask the tribunal 10 take
dt7te that tbe American citizens referred e
were crtmina4z Ia the eye Of the American
law at tSe time Ns1sa they were eiesh1s ~ -
TTnited states by her Majesty Government; az
sct witch the United States did not participate
in, and against which they have never cease t,,,
10 rrofpsf III would seem, therefore, 10 be I'm
r,ossfble TO impute 70 the United states any
consequence Of or Hesponsipillty for tne S@on con-
duct Of persons thus described as AtQsaleAl
Her Majesty's government has also stated
IN terms. many propositions some OF Jaw
some q fact and soIe S iRsG lt%sS law f6e i9f. b,
United States call attention 70 some oi ",
leading points OF difference between the W.
cases, With the reservation nsIst9tsls s.asl. t -
/ as 70 points not mepUoned and As 70 riglts o
First-Fhs British case seems TO coneede
that beligereht who has wropged neqtfa y !,
J by violating its sovereignty fhq forcing ~ . .
Il cke part, Indirectly, IN 3 val may neYer
thelsss, by some subsequent act speA e.
commissioning within the jurisdiction o.
1 neufral a vessel of war Improperly construct
cd within It's Jurisdiction, deprive the neutral
OF the right Of taking eognlzanee OF the oftsI,
nal onsase. The United states suggest ina
such right cannot be lost ny the mere act ol
offending q beliigerent.
Second-It appears to claim for the vessels
Of rebels recognized as belligerents an exemp.
ton from national jurisdiction, which should
be accorded, II al all only 20 the vessels OF
recognized ssyers1gp powers, % which powers
political IePresse tai.eas esn es made IN esse
I ignores the undoubted precautions of the
| Crown 70 exclude armed vessels from Its ma
Third-It attempts 60 il1ait the operation OF
1 the words ''due diligence" la Dapner In
consistent with principles Of law well sstah.
lisbed in continental Europe, in the United
KtnSaom and ii the United states, ana Il sep
up Is q measure OF the case 8 gtaQdafd which
duetuates With each succeeding change Of gov
eminent in the circuit Of the globe, viz, such
their doE3estie concerns.
Fourth.-If the United States have correctly
AIlAcf ElcA IL H9AtEA AkAA eNt-Ae ~
OaQe le7, Il asserts that ia case like the pre-
seat belligerent should be required 70 show
an tbS Dart of the neutral, as foundation tol
= claim i-r COMPENSATION, an absence OF cart
neerlv eouivslent 70 Wtiful negligence. Ths
ffnited States fsd notice That this polnl
- be pressed BY Yer Aatestg.s s2Yern
WooiH u had announced ,1es -Its ssss
meztt ana ~uder the direction Of An sd
would De partly DUblicisf, who had
inent and learneu in bis pnb.
vigorously insisted on II 49,.
Lie writing on the neutrality "a ~ 81
Britain In the American struggle. Ihey
therefore presented for the confederation of the