THE SAN FRANCISCO MAIL.

Evening Star, Issue 2826, 9 March 1872, Page 2

THE SAN FRANCISCO MAIL.

The news from Europe by the San Francisco Mail is wholly telegraphic, no English papers having been received at St Francisco in consequence of the snow blockade on the Union Pacific railroad. The Neioi of the World says the blockade has taught the company the necessity of snow sheds and fences in exposed places, such as are in use on the Central Pacific railroad, where there has been only the most trifling detention through floods. The snow blocks portions of a length of about one hundred miles out of three thousand two hundred. It was expected the line would be cleared within a week. The weather had been exceptionally severe over the whole country. In the ordinary course of events such storms would not probably recur in ten years. THE ALABAMA CLAIMS. The Sun Francisco JS r eics of the World gives copious extracts from the case submitted by the United States Government to the Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva. It opens with Captain Semmes’s desc;iption of the vessel, and proceeds to state that the contract for her construction was made between Captain bullock, for the Southern States, and Measis Laird, of Liverpool, about October 9th, 1861, for 255,000 dollars, and the money was paid by agents for “the insurgents.” She was launched May 15.h, under the name “ 290.” The officers were in England awaiting her completion, and were paid their salaries about the last of the month at Fraser, Trenholm and Co. ’s office, Liverpool. Before she was finished the United States Consul suspected the purpose for which she was building, and corresponded with Mr Adams on the subject, but had no proof sufficiently strong to justify representation to the Foreign Secretary of England, until June 23rd, when he wrote Lord John Russell, complaining of the previous despatch of the Florida, and the reasons he had for believing a still more powerful war steamer was nearly ready for departure from Liverpool, as a Southern States privateer; that the parties engaged in the enterprise were well known at Liverpool to be insurgents of the United States, and the vessel had been built and launched by persons, one of whom (Mr Laird) was a member of the House of Commons. He called upon the Government either to stop the expedition or to show it was not inimical to the United States. On the 4th July, 1562, Earl Russell enclosed a Custom’s report on the matter, in which it was stated that the officers referred to had at all times free access to Messrs Laird’s building yard at Birkenhead, and that there had been no attempt on the part of the builders to disguise what was most apparent, that she was intended as a vessel of war. This being acknowledged, the consul was instructed by his Government to furnish all the evidence in his possession to the Commissioner of Cusat Liverpool. He wrote to him accordingly and received a reply, stating, “The details given by you are not sufficient, in a legal point of view, to justify me in taking apon myself the responsibility of the detention of this ship. Mr Dudly, the United States Consul, laid a copy of his letters before Mr 11. P. ' ’oilier, (now Sir K. P, Collier) who advised that the principal officer of the Customs be applied to to seize the vessel, with a view to her condemnation, and at the same time to lay a statement of the facts before the (Secretary, and for Foreign Affairs, with a request that Her Majesty’s Government would direct the vessel to be seized, or ratify the seizure if made. Mr Dudley having succeeded in obtaining the required proofs on the 21st July, laid affidavits before the Collector of Cu*.

Toms, which were transmitted to the Board of Customs at London, with a request for instructions by telegraph, as the vessel might leave any hour. The Secretary of the Board of Customs said he could not act without orders from the Treasury. The answer was not given until the 28th, and on the 29th orders were immediately sent to Liverpool to stop the vessel. The vessel left the dock on the evening of the 28th, and sailed on the morning of the 29th. Eight days’ delay having occurred, during which no action was taken, notwithstanding notice had been given through three different channels, by letter, by counsel, and through Mr Adams, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary from the United States to the Con it of England, the government of the United States consider the English Government chargeable with gross negligence. Then follows a detail of the course taken by the Alabama in her cruise of the destruction and capture of vessels, of the cordial relations between the officers and those of British men-of-war lying at Jamaica, of the different Colonial ports at which the vessel was permi.ted to obtain supplies. The claims are founded upon six considerations —1 • That the the Alabama was constructed for the purpose of carrying on war against the United States ■within the dominions of Great Britain, then at peace with that country, and that the British Government did not use due diligence to prevent such construction, fitting out or equipping. 2. The charge is restated with additions as to arming, and stating that the whole should be regarded as one armed hostile expedition from a British port against the United States. 3. That by the rules of tho Treaty of Washington, due diligence was required to prevent her departure from Liverpool, Kingston (Jamaica), the Gape ot Good Hope and Singapore, and it was not observed. 4. That orders for her detention were not sent out as promised by Lord John Russell. 5. That excessive hospitality had been shewn at Gape Town on her being allowed to coal before three months had expired since her last coaline at Singapore, a British port. 6. -1 bat the responsibility for the acts of the Alabama includes that of her tender, the Tuscalosa. The record of the damage done by the Retribution, Georgia, Tallahassee or Olustee, Checkamanga and Shenandoah, is presented in the same form. The United States state that they have demonstrated that Great Britain has failed to fulfil the three rules of the sixth article of the Treaty, and that therefore they are entitled to compensation not only for the actual losses sustained, but for the expenses incurred in pursuit of the vessels.