The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1878-05-06
The English Thundcler ora American
Neutrality.

Among our cable dispatches yesterday
was synopsis of an article in the London
| Times on the mysterious movements OF the
Cimbria, expressing the strongest confidence
that the government Of the United States
will faithfully discharge its neutral obliga-
tions. The Thunderer is right in entertain
ing this confidence, but the reasons 1T
assigns are not those to which an American
journal would attach Importance For
convenience of comment we reproduce the
extract from the Times
There are good why We should regard pro.
ceedings OF this kind without alarm me cneI one -
that the United States government which mas always
prded Itself iullliing It's neutral duties, has been
placed under special obligations IN TINS respect oy
tho Washington Treaty. BY virtue OF us rules va
wcrc condemned to pay hne OF L3cu ooo ior uop.c
dations committed Ly The Alabama and her consorts
and tho United States. by accepting that hne, has
further pledged itself 10 observe on IT'S own part the
new rules oil the troaiy II unwecomc penalty
10 US at the time, have the advantage VI add
iiona protection low. We may, In fact, DO couhdcnt
that tho United States win nonornbly up TO- ITS
obgatloas in This respect and the Russians VIII con-
scquently ind IL difficult 10 execute the enterprises
they appear to have planned
It is not true that our government laid
itself under any fresh obligation by accept
ing the Alabama award. 1t is as tar as pos
sible from being true that what the Times
calls 'tho new rules OF the treaty" put us
on different ground. What the Times
calls s'the new rules" only declare pr.n-
ciples which the government OF the United
States hos held and maintained from its
origin. They were expounded by Jefferson,
the first American Secretary Of State, and
have been adhered to with unvarying con-
stancy from the administration OF Washing
ton down to the administrations Of Lincoln
and Grant, and the presidents are so uniform
that the administration OF Mr.. Hayes could
not depart from them, even If it wished to.
"The new rules are new only to England.
She accepted them by sort OF political con-
straint, cxcusing herself for former viola
tons by contending that they had no pre-
vious sanction. She caused the following
statement to be inserted in the treaty Of
1871:-"Her Britannia Majesty has COM
manded her High Commissioners and Plen-
ipo.entiaries to declare that Her Majesty's
government cannot assent to the foregoing
rules as a statement Of principles OF inter-
national law which were in force at
the time when the claims mentioned
in article / arose, but that Her
Majesty's government, in order to
evince its desire of strengthening the
friendly relations between the two countries
and Of making satisfactory provision for
the future, agrees that in deciding the ques-
tions," &C., it accepts the rules and will OBJ
serve them hereafter.
If the circumstances of the two govern
ments were just now reversed, ii it were
the United States that was drifting into q
war and Russia were attempting to pur-
chase vessels in England, it might be per-
tinent for an American journal to argue that
the British government had bound itself by
''thc new rules" Without the new rules
she might act toward US as she did
in the civil war and permit new Ala
balnas to be constructed in her shipyards
and sent forth to prey upon our merchant
ships. But the new rules do not bind us
to different course from that which we
have always voluntarily pursued. The
American government has always main
tanned those principles; has always acted
on them; has always applied them with
impartial and unvarying strictness against
cause with which our people sympathzed
and cause which they detested. Our peo-
pie gave their varmest good will to the
South American colonies in their struggle
for independence, but our government took
the most active pats to prevent the fitting
out from our ports of cruisers against
Spain. We took the warmest interest
| he n1,fio in ha
Hungarian uprising against Austria. in the
so-called ''patriot war" in Canada, in the
efforts of Cuba to achieve independence;
but in these cases, ono and all, and in every
like case, our government has fulfilled its
neutral obligations. Against this unde-
Waiting historical record it is supremely
ridiculous for the London Times to pretend
that England has any additional ground of
confidence in 'the new rules" Those
rules were only n formal expression of the
uniform American doctrine supported by
uniform American practice. 1t was Eng
land that foisted, not the United States,
into the Alabama Claims Treaty a dcclara-
ton that she regarded them rs an innova-
ton on the established principles of inter-
national law. Her pride compelled her to
do this as a means of shielding her former
practice.
Our government gave Great Britain the
benefit of these so-called new rules four
teen years before they were put into the
treaty, in the Crimean war, when American
sympathy was strongly enlisted on the
Russian side In one conspicuous instance
ut that time we made vigorous demonstra-
ton OF neutrality in behalf Of Great Britain,
for which we received bcggarly thanks. or
rather no thanks mt all, but the reverse. In
1866 vessel called tho Maury, lying III
this port, was suspected, and Mr.. Cramp-
ton, tho British Minister at Washing
ton, addressed a note to our government
offering to prove that the Maury was
a IL.