THE ALABAMA QUESTION.

Westport Times, Volume VI, Issue 978, 11 June 1872, Page 3

THE ALABAMA QUESTION.

The following is a synopsis of the British case presented to the Geneva Board of Arbitration : Part first begins by announcing that to the American imputations of hostile motives and insincere neutrality no rpply has been offered. England distinctly refuses to discuss these insinuations, because it would be inconsistent with her self-respect, irrelevant to the main issue, and tend to inflame the controversy. England's governing desire is to fulfil, even to exceed, her international duties. Nor will any reference be made to the claims for indirect damages, as the correspondence in regard to them is now pending between England and the United States. England assumes the claims to be limited to the losses occasioned by the Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and Shepandoah, but does not object to the introduction of the names of the nine other rebel cruisers added to the list in the American case. She calls attention to the fact that none of these vessels had previously been mentioned. No award is possible for the depredations of the Boston and Sallie, which are on the list but »ot mentioned elsewhere in the case of the United States, and were probably inadvertently included. The Board of Arbitration is reminded that its conclusions must be formed on proofs, not allegations ; and evidence must be sifted. The statements of American Consuls are credible when made in regard to facts within their personal knowledge, but unreliable when dealing with rumors. Consuls might share the irritability generated by war, and the erroneous views throughout the struggle colored their reports. England rejects as ovidence the papers captured on the Eichmond, the authors being unknown.

Part second details the American argument. It admits the proposition that a neutral power is bound at the request of a belligerent to enforce its international laws, and add to them if they are insufficient, with reparation due for appreciable injury resulting from clear violation of duty; but is unable to attach distinct meaning to some twelve propositions of the American case, and demurs to the exceptionally rigorous application made of these propositions to England.

It urges that at the time of the Confederate War the mere sale and delivery of vessels adapted for war to belligerents, was not a violation of neutrality to them. On this point it accepts the rule of the Treaty of Washington, not with the overstrained construction put on them by the Government of the United States, but according to the obvious purport. It regrets that the United Sla'es should see it to strain the interpretation of these rules to the uttermost, instead of accepting them in a fair, reasonable sense. It argues that England was bound to reeeive the Alabama as she would the vessel-of-war of any soverign state, and concludes by quoting from Ortolan, an" eminent Trench authority or international law, to show that the principles for which the United States contends, were never, heretofore, seriously asserted or recognised in Europe or America. Part three treats of the precedents adduced in the American case, and replies with others; such as the filibustering attack of Lopez on Cuba, Walker on Mexico and Central America, and the Eenians on Canada. The history of this subject is the history of unlawful enterprises originating in ' America with American citizens, American privateers had from time to time harrassed England, Spain, Portugal, Mexico, Central America, Cuba, and Canada. Part four considers various complaints made of the traffic in munitions of war with the South, blockade runby British ships, &c. j Part five gives the history of the cruisers Sumtee and Nashville, 'and complains of being required to meet demands, in regard to which the sole difficulty is treating them ars serious. Part six giveß t he account of the Florida and Alabama, with the detail of their escape. It seeks to show that the time between Adams' notice and we Alabama's departure was too short to justifythe claim of negligence. It claims that in this respect Knglar.d cannot be charged with any failure in her duty. Part sev.m quotes the history of the Sherv-uKiuah and Georgia. Part eight relates to the o'her vessels, and r.'pudiaios tho re *pcnyibilit.v f or their depredations. Part nine treats; of the reooptic-n of

rebel cruisers in British ports, and defends the conduct of Eugland by comparing it with that of other nations. Part ten, after recapitulating the facts, and arguments in the preceding parts, declares the claim for interest on damages awarded from July 1, 18G3, untenable. The losses of which the arbitrators may take account are at the utmost those specially arising from the capture and destruction of ships and property. .After describiug the situation of anxiety and insecurity in which neutrals can be placed in time of war, should the doctrines presented in the American case prevail, the case concluded with the expression of the hope that a frank and open statement of the facts will eventually remove every misunderstanding between the two nations bound by innumerable ties.