The Evening Star FRIDAY, APRIL 5, 1872.

Evening Star, Issue 2848, 5 April 1872, Page 2

The Evening Star FRIDAY, APRIL 5, 1872.

A short time back we gave an account of the American view of what are termed the Alabama claims, as laid before the arbitrators at Geneva. Further light is thrown upon it by an article in the ‘ Times published in January last. From the statement there given, it appears to have been assumed by Great Britain - that no pecuniary claim would be made by the United States Government in respect to any vessels except the Alabama, the Florida, the Georgia, and the Shenandoah. This was assumed because no express claim bad been made during tbo civil war uor since, until the appointment of

the Geneva Arbitration Court. Part Y. of tbe American case, however, dispels this delusion, and discloses in chronological order a list of cruisers for whose depredations the United States ask the tribunal to hold Great Britain responsible ;—“ The Sumter ; the Nashville ; the Florida and her tenders ; the Clarence ; the Tacony ; the Archer ; the Alabama and her tender ; the Tuscaloosa ; the Ketribution \ the Georgia ; the Tallahassee ; the Chickaraauga ; and the Shenandoah.” Most of our readers on reading this list will see some of the names of the vessels for the first time, and will naturally wonder what England had to do with the performances of such a formidable fleet. American ingenuity has not been at a loss in devising specious grounds for claiming compensation. Having laid down the principle that British responsibility extends not only to losses directly incurred, but to “ consequential injuries of the remotest possible kind,” the wonder is, not that the claim made is so heavy, but that it is not heavier. Not only is Great Britain asked to pay the expense of pursuing those twelve cruisers, but also the increased rate of insurance, upon American merchant vessels, “ the transfer of the American commercial marine to the British flag,” and the general cost of the war, so far as the joint depredations of the adverse cruisers tended to prolong it. Pity but the nation of the Stars and Stripes had gone some two hundred years back and claimed the whole cost of the war, because slavery was instituted under British rule: the red mil o ad abs/'r-d-‘>m would then have been so complete as to deceive no one. It is not even pretended tint all these vessels were built, equipped, or armed in British Ports. Far less wickedness than that suffices on which to found a claim to compensation. The Sumter, the Nashville, and others went forth, one from the Mississipi and the other from Charleston : the grievance in their cases is that they all received at least “ excessive hospitality” in ports under the control of the British Government, which is contrasted with the harsh and discourteous treatment alleged to have been experienced in enforcing the neutrality laws against the Northern cruisers. This is somewhat a novel claim. Jonathan says to John Bull, “ Sir, you bowed lower to Captain Semjies than to the Captain of the U.S. ship Kcarsage : I charge so much an inch for the difference.” We fancy the Geneva Commissioners will find it difficult to estimate the value of an unknown quantity of good breeding. The Times then gives a short narrative of the circumstances attending the fitting out, and voyages of the Florida, tending to show that in that instance no blame could be thrown upon the British Government. It appears that she was evidently intended for purposes of war, when she was built on the Mersey in 18G1. She left Liverpool under the name of the Oreto, March 22m1, ] BG2, duly registered as a British vessel, and cleared for Palermo and Jamaica. The American Consul called Lord John Bussell's attention to her, but so well was the secret kept that although an investigation look place, it was believed, as was professed, that she was built for the Italian Government. Instead of going to Palermo, she was taken to Nassau, one of the Bahamas ; where the crew discovering they had been deceived, refused to proceed further, and the vessel was seized by the Governor, but released by a judicial decree, after proceedings in the proper corny;, on the ground that no evidence of acts done beyond the colonial jurisdiction was admissible. No doubt this was an error. The Florida, however, left Nassau unarmed, having obtained a crew with some difficulty, and received her armament off another of the Bahama Islands. She then visited Cardenas, in Cuba, and on the 4th September ran the blockade into Mobile, which she left u during the night of the 1 Gth January, 1803.”

The British Case, on the other band, calls attention to the extraordinary negligence of the blockading squadron, through which she twice passed, and brings out the material fact that “ before committing any hostilities against vessels of citizens ot the United States, she sailed for and entered a port of the Confederates, where she remained during more than four months, and was put in condition for war, and enlisted a crew, and from whence she was finally sent out to cruise.” The remaining articles of charge affecting the Florida are founded entirely upon the facilities afforded her at Nassau, Barbadoes, and Bermuda in excess of those sanctioned by the Regulations i-sued on January 31, 18G2. Some of the points here raised appear to us trivial in the extieijie ; others deserve a more serious reply'; but it will be for the Arbitrators to decide whether any of them disclose a substantive ground of complaint under the rules of the Washington Treaty.