THE ALABAMA.
THE discussion of the numerous questions raised by the proceedings of this too famous vessel has always appeared to us somewhat premature. Our own Government, which is in the position of the accused, has yet to be heard in the mat- ter, and the delay of a very few weeks would have enabled Lord Russell to justify his conduct in his place in Parliament. It can scarcely be doubted that if there has been no other action on the part of the Ministers of the Crown than appears on the face of the despatches which have been published by the American Government—a supposition which we do not for a momenteentertain—Mr. Jefferson Davis has been per- mitted to violate the neutrality of Great Britain with an im- punity which casts some doubt on our good faith. This how- ever, is felt to be so improbable, that tho subject has been to some extent shirked, and our contemporaries have generally rather chosen to expatiate on the unreasonableness of an American claim to be indemnified for the losses which they have sustained at the hands of Captain Semmes—a topic likely to be more acceptable to the readers of the Times and Saturday Review, although, perhaps, scarcely the most im- portant or even practical side of the subject. For notwithstanding the amount of ink which has been spilled, and the bitter letters which have passed between 411istorieus" and a writer in the London Review, it is not very important, when the principles which govern the subject are agreed to, to decide what M. Hautefeuille and Sir Robert Phillirnore meant by maintaining that it was the duty of the neutral to vindicate his neutrality impartially against either belligerent. If they only mean that it is the moral duty of the neutral, "Historicus" does not deny it. If they mean that the neutral is bound to make good to the belligerent the damage he. may have sustained, the London Reviewer does not sustain them. Let M. Hautefeuille and Sir Robert undertake the guardianship of their own reputations. But we cannot think that the principles applicable to the subject were ever really in doubt, and for this simple reason, that it is entirely in the option of the neutral whether he will stand on his neutral rights or not. He may even go the length of granting the troops of a belligerent a passage over his territory. "It is no ground of complaint," says the Chancellor Kent, "against the inter- mediate neutral state if it grants a passage to belligerent troops, though inconvenience may thereby ensue to the adverse belligerent." No doubt the neutral would be bound to grant a similar privilege to the latter ; but this would in many cases, as, for instance, where the belligerents are very unequal in force, be of but little practical value. So, to come nearer the case of the Alabama, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that "a neutral nation may, if so disposed, grant permission to both belligerents to equip their vessels of war within her territory." In the face of this latter decision it seems idle to contend that the Foreign Enlistment Act, 59 Geo. III., c. 69, is other than a mere municipal enactment; and, notwithstanding Mr. Collier's vague assertion, in the opinion which he wrote for the American Embassy, that the collector of customs at Liverpool "would incur a heavy responsi- bility" in letting the Alabama leave that port, we cannot be- lieve it arguable that it is a responsibility to any American citizen, or to the American Government, or to any but the Government which employs him. The right of seizure given by the statute to the officers of Customs is a merely contingent right, to be exercised at the option of the Government which employs them. If the Crown licenses the buildine.a of the ves- sel, it never accrues. The question is, however, hardly likely to be tried.
But if the United States have no legal claim on our Government, we ought not to forget that legal maxims have never availed to decide questions of war and peace. If we have shown such supineness in the vindication of our rights as to make our neutrality "little better than a dead letter," we must expect remonstrances which our conduct has richly merited. The moment that one of the belligerents is con- vinced that the neutral exercises only a fraudulent and unreal neutrality, he cannot be blamed for treating the neutral as a foe. What will be sufficient to justify such a conviction ? Alas ! there is no answer to be given. It is commonly the result of a series of incidents, each, perhaps, of small import- ance in itself, but impressing the mind, as drops of water impress a rock by taking up the work just where it has been left by their immediate antecedents. The number of these petty incidents, the time necessary to produce estrangement be- tween nations, will vary according to the state of the popular feeling at the moment, and we must expect that it will arrive soonest in those nations which, perhaps have the least right to entertain it. No one is so touchy ;bout a trifling infraction of his own rights as the man who habitually takes trifling liberties with the rights of others. If this be one of the foibles of the Americans, and indeed of the Anglo-Saxon race, we should be the more careful to give no reasonable ground of suspicion ; and (it may well be our misfortune) ground for suspicion, we think, the known facts about the building of the Alabama have certainly given.
Mr. Adams originally applied to Lord Russell respecting the Alabama on the 23rd of June. This application seems to have been supported by evidence which has not as yet been published. Mr. Collier, Q.C. advised on the 16th July that "the evidence was almost conclusive" that the vessel was being fitted out by the. Messrs. Laird as a privateer for the use of the Confederate Government. On the 22nd of July the Government instructed the collector of Customs not to exercise the powers conferred on him by the act. In the absence of the evidence, we can, of course, pronounce no Opinion. Is the case stands at present, it is Mr. Collier versus the law- advisers of the Crown, and every one must decide which is the higher authority for himself. The argument which has been put forth, that it must have been known that the vessel was not intended for commerce by her build, is not to the point. Any government in Europe may have war vessels built in English dockyards. What it was necessary to prove was, that this war vessel was building for the Confederates. On the same 22nd of July Mr. Adams was able to place in Lord Russell's hands an affidavit, made by William Passmore, an English seaman, who swore that Captain Butcher, of the Alabama, had actually engaged him "to fight for the Southern Government." After this, one would have thought there ought to have been no further delay. The Government, after a mouth's discussion, ought to have known what evidence Woulajustify them. in acting. They were not, however, ready to act till the 29th, on which day the Alabama went, without papers, for a trial trip, from which she never returned. The auntie tendered by Lord Russell is the sudden illness of the Queen's Advocate, which is good, of course, for what it is worth; but Lord Russell might surely have got himself informed as to the law between the 22nd of June and the 23rd of July. Nor can we expect that Americans will consent to dissever alto- gether the conduct of our citizens from that of the Govern- ment. The Liverpool collector clearly was as blind as ever he could be, and care was taken that Captain Butcher should have timely warning as soon as he was in danger. When Englishmen, in answer to Mr. Seward's complaints of the hostility of British subjects, point to the impartiality of the Government—which, on the whole, they have a right to do— they ought to remember that Lord Clarendon in 1853 addressed precisely the same complaints to the Cabinet at Washington. Yet, whatever- soreness we may justly feel as to the bias of Americans in favour of France during the revolutionary war and of Russia more recently, their govern- ment at least was strictly impartial. In 1793, Mr. Jefferson, then Secretary of State, used the strongest language to Citizen Genet, who had made use of the American ports as the Confederates have used Liverpool. "It would have been proper respect to the authority of this country," he wrote, "had that been consulted before these arma- ments were undertaken." Has Mr. Jefferson Davis consulted ours? President Washington even indicted a Yankee named Henfield for enlisting in one of Citizen Genet's vessels. But the dislike to England and republican feeling for the new Republic of France was too strong for him, and the jury would not convict; yet the unpopularity of his policy did not prevent him from demanding Genet's recall. All we ask now is that our Government should make our neutrality equally clear, in spite of the fact that our territorial and commercial aristocracy hate a democratic form of society even more than slavery, and equality more than injustice. We are far from saying that the Government will not do so. We believe that they -will be able to show that they have done so. But let it not be forgotten that we are still without the least evidence whether they have done so or not.
It is certain that orders were expedited to seize the Alabama if she entered any British port—as she sailed— without papers. It is said that Lord Russell has peremptorily excluded her from every British port now that she is commis- sioned. Other satisfaction we can hardly give, for our policy of refusing to admit the prizes of either belligerent into our ports has given the Confederates the excuse of necessity for the piratical practice of burning captured merchantmen which have not been condemned by any court of prize. But if a prize made by the Alabama should enter any of our ports, our courts would certainly restore it to the owners, and if there had been a Confederate ambassador in this country he must certainly have been dismi: sed. At least, however vigorous remonstrances may be addressed to the Confederate President. At least the Customs authorities may be required to act more promptly in future. For our dilatoriness with regard to the Alabama, however satisfactorily it may be ex- plained, will always have an ugly aspect to jealous eyes. And connivance at the construction of a war vessel in our ports, even though she is not commissioned as such till after her departure, would be, to quote the words of the American Chief Justice in the case of the Gran Para, "a fraudulent neutrality, disgraceful to our Government, and of which no nation would be the dupe."
Previous page
