,%. ^Tc- IMAGE EVALUATION TFST TARGET (MT-3) ^ r/. M/j ^ 1.0 1.1 |2j8 125 12^2 Ef ■!£ 12.0 — 6" 1.8 11.25 i 1.4 i 1.6 7 ^M 7 Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 145S0 (716) 872-4503 ' CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques iV Technical and Bibliographic: Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographlques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the imaoes in the reproduction, or which may sig.'iificantly change the usual method of filming, are checiced below. D D Coloured covers/ Couveiture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^ et/ou pelliculAe Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes g6ographiques en couleur Coloured init (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents rri Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion D along interior margin/ La reliure serr^e peut causer de i'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intArieure Blanli leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutAes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le t«xia, mais, lorsque ceia 6tait possible, ces pages n'unt pas 4tA film6es. Additional comments:/ Commentairas supplAmentaires; L'institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6ti possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mithode normale de filmage sont indiqufo ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ D Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagtes Psges restored and/oi Pages restauries et/ou pelliculAes Pages discoloured, stained or foxet Pages dicoior^es, tachet6es ou piqu6es Pages detached/ Pages ddtachies Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir Quality inigale de I'impression Includes supplementary materii Comprend du matdriel supplimentaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponibie I I Pages damaged/ I I Psges restored and/or laminated/ I I Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ I I Pages detached/ I I Showthrough/ r~~| Quality of print varies/ I I Includes supplementary material/ I I Only edition available/ Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure. etc., ont *t^ film^es A nouveau de fapon it obtenir la meiiieure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film* au taux de reduction indiqu* ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X /T 26X 30X 12X 16X »X 24X 28X ] 32X The copy filmed her* hat b««n roproducad thanks to the generosity of: University of British Columbia Library L'exemplaire fllmA fut reprodult grice A la ginirositA de: University of British Columbia Library The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in Iteeping with the filming contract specifications. Les images suivantes ont At6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la netteti de l'exemplaire film*, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — ^ (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimie sont filmis en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant solt par la dernlAre page qui comporra une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration. solt par le second plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmAs en commenpant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symbolcs suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — ^> signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V sUgnifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc.. may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hend corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre fiimAs A des taux de reduction diff^rents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul clich6, il est film* A partir de I'angle sup^rieur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 r, -TJTv^" V < r f%| " asrr-r' DBPARTHBlfT Oy STATE. eORRESPONDEKCE pojrcRBmNo PKNDWS BETWEES GREAT BRITAIN » AStt THE UNITED STATES. TEAKSUrma, .^ ^ sB^^^ j^ ,^^„^^^ ^ ^ Blfflo^txjOK. WASHINGTON. CJOVBBNMBNT PBINTINO OFFICE 1870. ^'*-;V. I,' ^ ^\,^! QU i^'i>^^t~!i/im iiiAA %f DEPARTMENT OF STATE. CORRESPONDENCE CONCERN tN(} QUESTIONS PENDLNG BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES. TRANSMITTED TO THE SENATE IN OBEDIENCE TO A RESOLUTION. WASHI aTON. GOVEENMENT PP NTING OFFICE. ^ 1870. 'S^J n J- CORRESPONDENCE. Department of State, WaHhingfon, July 1;$, 1870. The Secretai-y of State, to whom was referred the resohitioii adopted by tlie Senate ou the 8th instant, requesting the President to conuniini- cate to that body, if compatible with the public interest, copies of any correspondence between the United States and (rreat Britain concerning questions pending between the two countries, not heretofore communi- cated, has the honor to lay before the President the papers mentioned in the annexed descriptive list. Respectfully submitted. HAMILTON PISH. The President. List of papers. No. 1. jNIr. Fish to Mr. Motley, No. 110, December 22, 1809. The Senate having called for correspondence between the United States and Clresit Britain, Mr. Fish has sent Lord Clarendon's note of November G, but has not sent the " Notes," because there was nothing to indicate that they contained the oflQcial views of her Majesty's government. No. 2. Mr. Motley to Mr. Fish, No. 210, January 13, 1870. Acknowl edging Mr. Fish's No. 119. Account of an interview with Lord Claren- don, in whicli the subjects of the naturalization treaty, the San Juan water boundary, and the Alabama claims were discussed. Lord Clar- endon regards the course of the United States upon water boundary convention as discourteous, and thinks jMr. Fish should have sent the British "Notes" to the Senate. No. 3. Lord Clarendon to Mr. Thornton, No. 22, January 21, 1870. Expressing surprise that no communication lias been made to the British government about the San Juan water boundary convention. No. 4. Mr. Fish to Mr. Motley, No. 149, February 14, 1870. Explaining the circumstances under which the "Notes" were received, and the reasons which this government had for regarding them as unoflicial ; and instructing Mr. ^Motley to inquire whether they are to be regarded as official. No. 5. Mr. Fish to Mr. Jlotley, No. l.")l, February 15, 1870. Lord Clarendon's charge of discourtesy as to the water boundary convention excites regret. The course ol" this government has not proceeded from a want of desire to observe strict courtesy toward the governnu'iit of Great Britain. As to tlie Sau Jiiiui water boundary, the Bt itisli gov- «IMMM MMI s. QUKSTIONH PENUINO UliTWKKN TIIK f:^' urninent were informt'd from tlu' oiitscf l»y tliis ^jovcnniu'iit (liat, iintii the naturalization Jiut'stion was sottlod, any atti>mi)t to scttlo »)tlior queHtious would be unavailinji;. The iiatiirali/atioii (picstion was not settled when the time lor exchanging ratifications of the water boundary convention expired. No. 0. Mr. Motley to Mr. Fish, No. L'74, Mareh H), 1S7(>. lias read to Lord Clarendon Mr. Fish's No. l*)! and left co])y. Lord ('. «'xi)ressed Batisfaetion. No. 7. :Mr. Motley to Mr. Fish, No. 278, March 17, 1870. Further as to the "Notes," inclosing copy of Mr. Motley's note to Lonl Clarendon under the instructions in Mr. Fish's No. 140. No. 8. :Mr. Motley to Mr. Fish, No. 282, March 11), 1870. Inclosing a note from Lord Clarendon as to the character to be given to the "Notes." They represent the views of her Majesty's government, and are in the nature of nu historical statement. No. 9. Mr. Fish to Mr. INIotley, No. 190, April 25, 1870. Acknowledg ing receipt of Mr. Motley's No. 282, commenting upon Lord Clarendon's note iu Mr. Motley's No. 282, and concluding that this government will (unless invited by her Majesty's government to a different course) regard the "Notes" as no part of the otticial correspondence. No. 10. Mr. Fish to Mr. Motley, No. 211, June 10, 1870. Transmitting copy of II note (dated May 24, 1870) from Lord Clarendon to Mr. Thorn ton about the "Notes." Her Majesty's government agi >e with Mr. Fish that it is not expedient to prolong the discussion on points on which there is little hope of being able to agree. :a' 4 • No. 1. Mr. Fish to Mr. Motley. B No. 119.J Depabtivient OF State, Washington, December 22, 1869. Sib : The Senate of the United States on the 20th instant " resolved that the President of the United States be requested to commnuicate to the Senate, if in his opinion not incompatible with the public interests, copies of any correspondence between the United States and Great Britain concerning questions pending between the two countries, since the rejection of the claims convention by the Senate." In response to this resolution, the President has, this morning, sent to the Senate a message,* of which I Inclose a copy, together with a list of the correspondence accompanying it. You will observe that while the note of Lord Clarendon to Mr. Thorn- ton, of the Gth of November last, referred to in your No. 168, is made public, the paper entitled " Notes" on Mr. Fish's dispatch to Mr. Motley, of 25th of September, 1869, respecting the Alabama, &c., claims, also referred to in your No. 168, does not accompany the President's message. It is perhaps proper that an explanation should be made of the reason for this omission. * For message of tlio Prcsirtont, see Seuato Executive Document No. 10, forty-first Congress, second sessiou. ii^^«j|js^^»,g^tjB!vti^^M^l R^" UNITKD STATICS AND OREAT URITAIN. 3 When .Mr. Thornton, in obedionco to his instructions, anil at my n» quest, Manded mo a copy of the " Notrs " (whicili you will observe are not tiated or sigue*!) ho left with me no written paper to indicate that they were to be regarded definitively and otllcially as tlie views of her JVIajesty's government on the matters discussed in them. And since Lord Clarendon, in his uote of the Cth of November, had exi)ressly de- clined to follow me in the discussion of the issues jjresented by my No. 70, of the ',*5th September last, I was f«)rced to tJie conclusion that her Majesty's oJ^vernment do not desire this government to regard the "Notes" as a response to the views which you were instructed to pre- sent to Lord Clarendon, and that therefore I should uot bo justified in giving that character to it by transmitting it to the Senate as a part of the " correspondence." You will, when an opportunity offers, nmke this explanation to Lord Clarendon. I am, sir, your oboifient servant, HAMILTON FISH. John Lotiirop Motlky, Estter to wait I'or the result. I had been instructed, on leavinjy the IFnitcd States, to sjiy that the convention had been considered in the Senate; which body had, however, adjourned without coming; to a vote upon it, but that, in the usual order of business, it would be before the Senate when Congress should reassemble. Hitherto I had not been informed of any indications to the cjiitrary. I then explained to him, as you had instructed me in your above- mentioned dispatch to do, that, from the list of papers sent to the Senate by the President on the U2d ultimo, the paper entitled "Notes on 3Ir. Fish's dispatch to Mr. Motley of L'.'ith September, 1809, resi)ecting the Alabama, &c,, claims," had been omitted because you had been forced to the conclusion that her Majesty's government did not desire the government of the United States to regard those "Notes" asares[ionse to the views set forth in your dispatch to me of the "jr^f^h * September last, Mr. Thornton not having indicated, in M'riting, that ilicy wore to bo defiuitively and officially so regarded. His lordship said that he had been much surprised at the omission of the paper, because, although he would have preferred that the corre- spondence should remain unpublished f(U' the present, he thought, as the publication was to be nnuh*, that the "Notes" should have been Included. I observed that, as his lordship had stated in a separate dispatch to Mr. Thornton the determination of her Majesty's government not to fol- low the United St.ates Secretary of State througli the long recapitula- tion of the various points of the correspondence between the two gov- ernments during several years, it was reasonable that you shoubl not think yourself justified in giving an official character to the paper in question, by transmitting it to the Senate as part of the correspond- ence. I also read the whole of your dispatch No. Ill) to his lordship, calling his attention to its date, 22d December, two days accordingly before publication had been made of ])arts of the same correspondence in the London Gazette of Friday, 24th De(!ember last. His lordship repeated his opinion that the "Notes" on uUt to have been included in the papers transmitted to the Senate, adding that the documents had been communicated to the London Gazette only when telegraphic information had been received that they had been made public in the United States. With regard to your suggestion that the "Notes" were not dated or signed, his lordship expressed the opinion that they should bo considered as bearing the same date as that of the dispatch to which they were appended. I ventured to remind his loniship that, so far as the omission might be considered as prejudicial to a due exhibition to the American public of the latest views of her Majesty's government on the subject which had already been so voluminously and elaborately discussed for several years between the two governments, the detriment would perhaps have been already repaired by the reproduction from the London Gazette in American journals of the "Notes" and of such other parts of the corre- spondence as had been made public in England and not in the United States. His lordship proceeded to comment upon your dispatch No. 70, saying that it was diiiicult to look for hopeful negotiations when so strong an in- ^".'V > .^ ^^- .^'t UNITED STATES AND GREAT IJRITAIN. iiin miglit m public jct which >r several laps have razette in ;he corre- e United 0, saying ing an in- dictment again. e*- was considered by the Tnited States government as conciliatory. I said that I believed that the statements 4'oiitaineire of ah .iiscussion, ♦hat, throughout the whole course of the war, English-built, arnuMl. manned, and equipped ships had been systemati- •ally employed in ^Ulhing Auierieau merchant vessels ; a general sense of wrong thus excited could hardly be expected to subside without any atteiniit at reparation. His lordship '"timaled that it had been found impossible to prevent (hete evasions of the law, in spite of the eflForts of g(»vernment ; to which I resixtmled that it had been found practica- ble to prevent similar misdemeanors in the United States on many memorable occasions, and I took occasion, by way of exanii»le, to dwell particularly on the expeditious manner in which aflidavits had been tiled by telegraph in the case of the IMaury, in 185,j, and the ship in- •stantly libeled by the United States government and held until declared innocent to the lull satisfaction of the llritish representative in the United States. Allusions Avere made, in the course of the conversation, to projjosed changes in the law, which his lordship expressed himself heartily in favor of, according to the suggestions in your dispatch. Ho alluded to his having himself i>roposed such changes to Mr. Adams. I took the liberty of repeating, what I had frequently intimated before, that the i)eople in the United States would hardly think it reasonable to provide for the security of other nations in the possible contingencies of the future, against the very injuries to which we had been obliged to submit, so long as those injuries were justified, or at least left unre- dressed. On several occasions in our history we had altered our laws at the instance of other governments, England among the rest, in order to prevent the perpetration of wrong upon friendly nations, while the British government, in the midst of the war, (our commerce then suffer- ing from the depredations of cruisers litted out in British ports,) had informed ~Sl\\ Adams that the British laws then in force required no altt . ation and were sufticiently efiective. If that was the case then, why did they reciuire alteration now ? Disasters were to be feared in the future, I '^liought, if affairs should remain in their present condi- tion ; for it was doubtful, if the cases were reversed at some future period, whether the British government and people would quietly sub- mit to the same amount of damage to their commercial marine by ille- gally equipped cruisers from our ports, as that which we had suffered from the ships which were fitted out from the Mersey and Clyde. The rulings in the Alexandra would make commerce the prey to un- numbered Alabamas, all that was necessary to legalize expeditions against a friendly power being to divide them into two or three parts, and make the junction three miles from the coast. 6 QUESTIONS PENDING BETWEEN THE It was because the widespread disasters whicli might flow from such precedents were deprecated that we hoped that some means might be found, now that peace happily prevailed, to arrange honorably and equitably this great difference between the two nations. I could not understand how a temperate and dispassionate statement, like the dispatch of the Secretary of State, could be considered other- wise than conciliatory. Certainly, if all the proceedings of which we complain were to be persistently justified by the British government, it was difficult to see how these differences could be satisfactorily arranged. If such proceedings were wrong, they required reparation ; if they were lawful, they might form an unfortunate precedent for the future. Lord Clarendon said that he would certainly be very averse from saying or doing anything to envenom the dispute, repeating what he had expressed in all our interviews — his sincere and earnest desire for peace and amity. I assured him that the President and the United States government were earnestly desirous of i)eace and the establishment of amicable rela- tions between the two governments, upon honorable, equitable, and dur- able terms. Certainly, all my humble efforts would be to that end, and nothing left undone consistently with devotion to the honor and interests of my own country. The responsibility was great on those to whom any part of the relations between two such powerful communities were con- fided, to provide now in time of peace for the great calamities which all men sav/ were possible, ii matters remained as they did now in case of future wars. This, as accurately as I can remember it, is the substance of the con- versation which arose out of my making the explanations, according to the instructions in your dispatch Jfo. 119, and which, although of a somewhat informal nature, I think should be reported to you as faith- fully as my memory enables me to do. I am not unmindful of the de- sire of the President that the negotiations on this important subject should be conducted, whenever reopened, at AVashington. I am, sir, your obedient servant, JOHN LOTHROP MOTLF.Y. Hon. Hamilton Fish, Secrctarxj of State, Wmhington, J). C. No. 3. Lord Clarendon to Mr. Thornton. [Received Febnuiiy 10, 1870, at Dopartment of State.] No. 22.] Foreign Office, January 21, 1870. SiE : I have to instruct you to slate to Mr. Fish that her Majesty's government Lave seen with some surprise that the 14th day of this month and successive days have been allowed to pass over withoiit any communication being made to them, on the part of thd govern- ment of the United States, respecting the San Juan convention, which, under the authority of his government, Mr. Reverdy Johnson signed with me on the 14tli of January, 1869, and of which the t^nth article 'jtm HMStj^M^^^mm om such might be ibly and atenient, ed other- vhich we nment, it irranged. hey were e. rse from what he lesire for 'eruiuent able rela- and dur- eud, and interests hoiu any nere con- which all u case of the cou- ording to ugh of a as f the de- t subject CLEY. , 1870. lajesty's of this without govern - , which, I signed I article UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN. 7 provided that " the ratifications shall be exchanged at London as soon as nniy be, twelve mouths from the date hereof." You reported in your dispatch No. 159, of the 2Gth of April, that the Senate had decided that the further consideration of the conveiition should be deferred until the next session of that body, which would open in December ; but, as far as her Majesty's government are in- formed, the Senate, since its reasseml)ling iii December, has not taken the convention into consideration. The Senate of the United States might uu(iuestionably, in the exer- cise of its constitutional powers, have declined to advise the President to ratify the San Juan convention, in the same manner as they had declined to advise him to ratify the claims convention. But her Maj- esty's government cannot but observe that when the Senate had come to that decision in regard to the latter convention, no time was lost in making it known to her Majesty's government. But, in the case of the San Juan convention, no explanation whatever has been made to them of the action taken upon it by the Senate, or of the reasons why the convention has been allowed to lapse without observation on the part of the United States. You will read this dispatch to Mr. Fish, and, if he should desire it, furnish him with a copy of it. I am, «&c., &c., CLARENDON. No. 4. 2fr. Fish to Mr. Motley. No. 140.J Department of Stated, Washington, Fehniary 14, 1870. Sir: I find it necessary to call the attention of yourself, and, through you, that of the Earl of Clarendoii, to some incidents nnd suggestions of late dispatches, in order to the clear understanding of the present attitude of some of the questions now pending between the two govern- ments. ■ Mr. Thornton called at the department on the 19th of November last, and read to me, and left with me, a copy of a dispatch addressed to him by the Earl of Clarendon the (Jth of November last, dedicated to the consideration of my dispatch of the 2r»th of Sej>tember last, in which the Earl of Clarendon says: And it is beciuiac they earnestly tlesire to hasten the period at whieh the." iniportimt objects may be accomplished that her Majesty's governmetft have determined not to follow Mr. Fish throuj^h the lonjj; re(!apituiation of the variona points that have been discussed in the voluminous correspoudenco that has taken place between the two governments for several years. The language of this paragraph is dear and explitiit. For important and sufticient reasons, stated v/ith precision by the Earl of Clarendon, her Majesty's government declined to take up and discuss the points of my dispatch of the 25th of September. The Earl of Clarendon does not ]>resent, as one of the reasons for this determination, that my dispatch was not an official paper, discussing officially nmtters of moment to both governments. To tlje contrary of d (QUESTIONS PENDING BETWEEN THE this, throughout this dispatch, he treats mine as official, recapituhiteH and responds to material parts of it, and propounds responsive proposi- tions on the part of her ]\Iajesty's government. At the same time, Mr. Thornton left with me an unsigned paper, entitled "Notes," consisting of an argumentative commentary on the contents of my dispatch of the 25th of September. I was at a loss to comprehend the purpose of her Majesty's government ; that is, to perceive whether it did or did not intend to be understood as "determined not to follow" me in discussion of the points of controversy between the two governments. The Earl of Clarendon's disiiatch expressed absolute determination not to do this; and, nevertheless, it seemed to be done iv fact in and by these "Notes." In the presence of such uniicrtainty in this respect, it was considered more just to adopt the course of comity and of favorable construction, and before adopting any positive conclusion to wait for reflection and for such possible solutions of doubt in the process of time as circuija- stances might attord. There was nothing in the state of controversy to forbid such course or to piejudice by it any interest of the United States. ■ Meanwhile the pre-existing uncertainty in this respect was augmented by the publication in the Loiulon Gazette, of the 24th of December last, of "Correspondence with the United States minister at Washington," in which iippears a second dispatch froni the Earl of Clarendon, of No- vember 6, 1869, which first came under my observation as thus published by the Foreign Office in the London Gazette. In this dispatch I find to my surprise that the Earl of Clarencfon professed to look upon my dis- patch of the 25th of September as " not being of a strictly official character," and as being communicated to him personally rather than as the representative of the Queen's government, and that therefore he did not think it necessary in his "official reply to the communication made by Mr. Motley" to express dissent from the statements made in my dispatch. In the formal determination expressed by the Earl of Clarendon in his first dispatch to Mr. Thornton, of November 0, not to pursue the discussion, and in the delivery of the paper entitled "Notes," there seemed to be contradiction between words and acts; but as the "Notes'' were without date and unsigned, as they were unofficial in tenor and form, and as, therefore, they did not afford to the government of the United States opportunity to treat them as an official reply of the Queen's government to that of the United States, it was necessary for the latter either to leave them unanswered, or, in answering them, to call in question the frankness of the Earl of Clarendon. The tenor of the Ean of Clarendon's second dispatch of the Gth of November, and the appearance of the "Notes" in the "Correspondence'' published by the Foreign Office, but, when thus made ijublic, elevated into the dignity of " Observations," serve to increase the uncertainty of construction in this respect which the delivery of the " Notes" in con- nection with the Earl of Clarendon's first dispatch of the (Jth of Novem- ber produced. The reference of the Earl of Clarendon in the second dispatch of the 6th of November to a passage in my dispatch of the 2oth of September adds still more to this uncertainty. I addressed that dispatch to you with authority to read it and del'ver a copy of it to the Earl of Claren- don in accordance with diplomatic usage. This you did at the Foreign Office on the 15th of Of>tcber, as appears by Lord Clarendon's dispatch of 6th November, which Mr. Thofnto;i ( i UNITED STATES AND GREAT KRITAIN. d apituliites e proposi- tinie, Mr. consisting tch of the 3S0 of her r (lid not discussion The Earl lot to do by these onsidercd structiou, ction and IS circuip- oversy to 10 United ugmented mber last, jhington," )n, of No- pn Wished I find to )n my dis- ly official ither than erefore he inuication 8 made in reudon in ursue the es," there ) "Notes'' tenor and lit of the •ly of the essary for ■ them, to he Gth of ondence" , elevated rtainty of i" in con- f Novem- nh of the eptember ih to you f C'laren- 1 appears riiornto;) read to me. Lord Clarendon then treated it as an official paper, remark- ing; that he would not then enter into any discussion on the subject, yet he hoped that his silence would not be considered to indicate that the •' dispatch" (not a privatie communication) did not admit of a complete reply. He recpiested a copy of it, " as he would not undertake from memory accurately to report to his colleagues the contents." He fur- ther says that " Mr. Motley agreed to do so if I (he) would ask him for it offieially,'''' and he accordingly addressed to him (Mr. Motley) the same afternoon a letter dated at tlie Foreign Office, requesting a copy of "the long and important dispatch" " for the i)urpose of reporting to his col- leagues," as if it was at that tinu^ regarded as of an official character, and as communicated to the Va\v\ of (Marendon as the representative of the (Queen's government. Wlien Mr. Thornton called at this department on the 19th of Novem- ber, I Avas on the i>oiiit of departure to atteiul a meeting of the cabinet. His visit was not expected. I mentioned to him the necessity of my immediate departure, but at his request delayed to hear the dispatch of 0th of November, which he was instructed to read to me, and to leave a copy of it if recjuested. He then produced a longer paper, which he stated he was also instructed to read. I objected on account of the i shortness of time, as I could then barely reach the President before the hour appointed for the cabinet meeting. He then proposed to leave the ])aper with me, if I would consider it as having been read, to which I assented, reserving the right to return to him the copy if on perusal I should tind in it anything (which I remarked I did not think at all probable) that would be improper or objectionable to place among the papers of this oHuie. AVith this understanding I received the psiper (at that time) entitled " Notes," without its being read. It Avas the evening of that day (after tlie cabinet meeting) before I read or knew the con- tents of that i)a])er. I had nothing to excite my suspicion that Lord Clarendon claimed to have received my dispatch No. 70 as a communi- cation to him personally rather than as the representative of the Queen's government. Any intimation of that nature would necessarily have in- duced a \ery diiferent course of action on my part. Lord Clarendon's own acts had negatived any such hypothesis. I Avas indeed at a loss to account for the ai)parent discrepancy between the views of her IVLajesty's government, as officially communicate- ulation of the Northwest, and with the multiplication of causes of liti- gation within the disputed territory. The United States still remain in a disposition favorable to the process of adjustment originally contem- plated." This was communicated by Mr. Johnson to Lord Stanley, as was also the following extract li'om his instructions : "Our conclusion is that, in the event that you become convinced that an arrangement of the naturalization question which would be satisfac- tory to the United States, in view of your previous instructions, can be made, then, and in that case, you may open concuri'ent negotiations upon the two questions first herein named, to wit, San Juan and the claims questions; but that those two negotiations shall not be completed, or your proceedings therein be deemed obligatory, until after the naturali- zation question shall have been satisfactorily settled by treaty or b>- law^ of Parliament." In consequence of this latter clause of Mr. Johnson's instruction, a provision was inserted in the protocol, signed by Mv. John- «'on and Lord Stanley on the 17th October, 18G8, embodying the agree- ment to refer to some friendly state or power the settlement of the northwest boundary line (the San Juan protocol) in these Avords : " It is understood that this agreement shall not go into operation or have any effect until the question of naturalization now pending between the two governments shall have been satisfactorily settled by treaty, or by law of Parliament, or by both, unless the two parties shall in the mean time otherwise agree." This government has at no time otherwise agreed. Her Majesty's government has, therefore, from the iirst been fully advised that this government regarded the satisfactory settlement of the naturalization question as a preliminary to the settlement of the San Juan controversy, 13 QUESTIONS PENDING BETWEEN THE /I m U'iJ;, and that the negotiations with respect to the Isitter should not be com- pleted until after the naturalization question shall have been satisfac- torily settled by treaty or by law of Parliament. On the 10th of November, 18G8, a further protocol was signed by Mr. Reverdj' Johnson and Lord Stanley, agreeing to refer the disputed •piestion of boundary to the decision of the president of the federal council of the Swiss Confederation. On the 2Gth of December, 1868, Lord Clarendon instructed Mr. Thorn- ton to recall to Mr. Seward's recollection a (iontingent authority he had previously given to Mr. Johnson, to convert the San Juan i)rotocol nto 11 convention, and suggested that he be again specifically authorized by telegraph to do so. The protocol was accordingly converted into a con- vention, and signed on the 14th January, 1869, and Mas immediately submitted to the Senate for its constitutional action thereon. The convention does not repeat the fifth article of the protocol of the 17th October, which made the agreement to refer the settlement of the disputed boundary to arbitration depend for its oi>eration and effective- ness upon the previous satisfactory settlement by treaty or by law of Parliament, or by both, of the more important question of naturalization. It was not necessary that it should be repeated. It was, in its nature, but temporary, and therefore no proper article of a permanent convention, on the face of which it might for all time be a blemish, to raise a ques- tion and to throw a doubt upon the validity of the treaty as dependent upon the i^riority of ratification between it and another convention. But it was a solemn agreement between the two governments, not to be waived by imi)lication or by inference — to be avoided only by agree- ment of both parties. Neither party has proposed to avoul or to abro- gate it. In forwarding the San Jusrn convention to his government, Mr. Reverdy Johnson wrote on the 1.5th of January, 1869, (the dfiy after it was signed,) that " it differs only from the protocol in the same subject, in the insertion of such provisions as became necessary by their con- version into a convention." To attempt to argue the continued validity of that part of the agreement might be constnxed into a mistrust of the fair dealing of one or other of the parties to the agreement. It is true that in consenting that the San Juan protocol should be matured into a convention in January, 1869, the United States did suffer that subject to take a step in advance, in matter of form, of the natural- ization question. But in so doing, this government did not intend to relinquish, was not understood to relinquish, and did not, in fact, relin- quish its position on the naturalization question. The British government had agreed in the naturalization protocol of 9th October, 1860, to intro- duce measures into Parliament to carry its principles into operation, us speedily as might be possible, having regard to the variety of public and private interests which might be affected by a change in the laws of naturalization, &c. ; and the government of the United States, ini^er- mitting the San Juan question to take temporary or apparent pre- cedence in point of form, still trusted in the good faith of the Queen's government to carry out that agreement to the letter and spirit. This could have been settled at any moment by act of Parliament. It was a matter wholly within the power of the Queen's government to arrange at any moment, at its own convenience, and in its own way, free from the complications of international conventions or diplomatic negotia- tion. This it has not done. Parliament convened on the 16th Feb- ruary, 1869, more than four months after the agreement on the natural- ization protocol, and continued its session until August 11, of the same -Tnfrr «i- is ii'V'Vjii '"i WLLi'linLnMl ff UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN. 1§ be com- 1 year — Ji session of nearly six niontbs — without the introduction of nieas- mtisfac- | ures to carry the iirinciples of the protocol into operation. j In pursuance of your instructions, you, on the lOth diiy of June last, bj-^Mr. I informed Lord Clarendon that you were " ready to enter into arrange- isputed i ments for converting the protocol signed on the Oth October, 18G8, in federal 1 regard to naturalization into a treaty ." In reply, he expressed a doubt whether there would be time during what was left of the session, to carry the necessary preliminary measures through Parliament. On the 2Cth of June, under further instructions, you again called his lordship's attention to this subject, and you expressed " the earnest wish of your government that the needful legislation might be had and the protocol converted into a treaty without further unnecessary delay." His lordship replied, on the Oth of July, that " it would be ai)solutely impossible to carry through Parliament so large and complex a measure as the naturalization bill before the time arrives for the prorogation." On the 10th of August, I instructed you to say that I had not felt wil- ling to i)ress Lord Clarendon while a domestic question of sucli great importance to Great Britian, and so interesting to a large class of peo- ple in this country, as the Irish church bill was pending ; that I aitciui- esced in his decision that it was impossible to carry a naturalization bill through at the close of a session; that Mr. Seward had frankly in- formed the British government that, until the naturalization question should be settled, any attempts to settle the other existing controversies Avould be unavailing ; and that the present administration concurred in that opinion, and hoped that there would be no delay on the part of Lotd Clarendon in the preparation of a bill for the action of Parliament at its next session. These representations were made by you on the lOth of September, and were acknowledged by Lord Clarendon on the 22d of that month. Congress assembled as usual on the first Monday of December, and proceeded with its ordinary business. The 14th of January arrived without any further communioation from Lord Clarendon upon the sub- ject of the proposed naturalization convention, and without a request from her Majesty's government for an extension of the time for the exchange of the ratifications of the water boundary convention. In these circumstances, while if there be any cause for the suggestion of discourtesy (as implied by delay) on either side, the United States government would seem to have the better reason to make such sug- gestion, yet we do not either admit or charge discourtesy. We stand on higher ground. We know well that her Majesty's governn. twill claim no advantage of the confidence which the United States reposed in it, when converting the San Juan protocol into a convention, in an- ticipation of a prompt and prior settlement of the naturalization ques- tion in accordance with the solemn agreement between the two govern- ments. In both nations we must accept the inconveniences of consti- tutional institutions with their greater benefits, and neither has good cause of complaint against the other, if the acts of the Senate of the United States, on the one hand, or those of the Parliament of Great Britain, on the other, do not keep pace with, or correspond to, all the views of the executive government. You will read this dispatch to Lord Clarendon, and leave a copy with him. I am, sir, your obedient servant, HAMILTON FISH. J. LoTllROP MoTLKV, Esq., ih:, ibc, &c., London. ■-^^x u m^ \ii '-'! i ^ 1 > ] %: It is cimHidercd desirablo by my government that your lordship'ti atten- tion sliouUl be culled to certain incidents connected with the recent corrcspondcnc* between the government of her Majesty and that of the United States. Yo\ir lordsiiip remembers that on the 15th of October last I had the honor of an in- terview with you at the Foreign Office, on which occasion I read to yon a long otticial dispatch of the Secretary of State of the United States. This dispatch, which treated of international affairs of moment, had been "lUdressed to myself, as minister of thj United States at her Majesty's court, with authcrity to read it to your lordship. After hearing it read, your lordship observed that it would be hardly proper for you to report from memory to your coUeagnes the contents of so long and important a dispatch, (not a private communication,) and you accordingly asked if I were authorized to furnish a copy of it. I replied that I would do so if you would ask me for it officially. Your lordship accordingly did me the honor of addressing me a written request from the Foreign Office on the same day, and the copy was furnished by me on the following day, as appears by my note to your lordship of that date. So iar as I am aware, there was nothing in these incidents not strictly in conformity with official diplomatic usage, the dispatch of Mr. Fish being one of a numbereil series, not miirkcd confidential, and liaving been officially communicated by me, in copy, to your lordship, expressly that it might bo laid before your lordship's colleagues, her Majesty's government. It did not occur to me, either at our interview or when senduij; to your lordship the copy of Mr. Fish's dispatch, that the transaction was other than a purely official one ; or that the communication made by me, on authority of the United States govern- ment, was not made to your lordship as her Majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign aff'airs. Your lordship did me the honor to observe that your silence at our interview did not imply that there was not anotlicr side to the argument in Mr. Fish's dispatch, but was only because of the wish expressed by myself, in obedience to the instructions of my government, that official discussion on these particular topics might, in future, be conducted in Washington. For this reason, no further official conversation ensued be- tween us ou that occasion. On the 19th of Novcuber, (.is I am informed by the Secretary of State of the United States,) her Majesty's envoy at Washington, Mr. Thornton, called at the Department of State and read to Mr. Fi.sh, and left Avith him a copy of, a dispatch addressed by your lordship on the 6th of November hiPt io Mr. Thornton, dedicated to the consider- ation of Mr. Fish's dispatch of the 25th of September to myself. lu this dispatch to Mr. Thornton your lonlship says : " And it is i)ecau8e tliey earnestly desire to hasten "the period at which these im- portant objects may be accomplished that her Majesty's government have determineil not to follow Mr. Fish through the long recapitulation of the various points that have been discussed in tlie voluminous correspondence that has taken place between the two governmeuts for several years." Jl I I! 1 16 QUP:8TI0N8 PENDINO JJETVVEEN THE The 111 >t' thi ill, like tlii^ III th {iKiiit tliti (li.s|iatcli; is cU' ii^fiia^i) I and cxiiliuit. For iiniiortuiit luid nullicit^nt n.-asoiw, Htatttd with iirocisiou Ity ,vi)ur l(>nlHliii>, her MiiJeHty'H (;(»v<'rnini'iit aiuuiiin''i' their deterriiiiiatioii ih>t ^o take np and diiiciiHH tlio iiointH of Mr. FIhIi'h dispatch ol' the '2r)th of 8e)iteiiili(M-. Hut it in nowhere siiKK{ and respondinn to nniterini parts of it ; offering responsive [iropositions on tlio part of her Majesty's government ; and, in faet, impressing u[ion the whole tone of your reply the otlicial stamp of her Majesty's govenuuent, in who.so nanu), many times repeated in the dispatch, a formal du.v your Ilk*! Il|l iitul in iiowIierH paper, ilw- itiar.v, your of Air. Fish rcMpoiiHivo BH.sitii; upon nt, in whoso taut Hubjeot the L'mte(l •r last,) Mr. in uuHitrned the contfuts liinisclt' at a ill (l(Ul)lt ollow " him Vonr lonl- 'itliik'ss, it ut the 8tat« I'tiiig to at- .Siicictary of his rcMiut'st, lad Ijt't'ii iu- hvas al«o iii- as he eould uieetiiig. State, if ho ng tht) riglit 10 remarked, ible to place no) "Notes," nof meeting, an that your tciuhor) as a the Queen's luced a very vn action, so self at a loss ment as ofli- V 6th to Mr. State, being bhem to that this had not remember, I last, to read ary of State (Jth of No- uado public, 1 of Septem- respondeuco tea," (which te that they government ' in (piestion nich a mem- nclosed was ?r seen until )f State, nor of its cxist- lou Ga:^ctto UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN. M It wan then that thn Secretary of State hhw for the l\nt dinpatch, written by your lordship to Mr. Thornton, in which the maintained by your lordship in the former note of the same date, of the 'ilst of Dccembor hmt. time that ttccoud oflQcial choracter mail which ho had read to Mr. Fish, and of which ho hwl furnished a copy, was disciaimed. It was this publication tliat first gave to those "NotoH" an official significance. Your lordship will now coniprenend the donbtfulnoM of the Secretary of State aa tu the position in this regard of her Majesty's govornmont at the moment of the official communication made to him at Washington. This doubtfulness has made it seem more just to atlopt the course of comity and of favorable construction, and before coming to a positive conclusion to wait for retloctiou and r of date of Cth of November, now coming under tho observation of the Secretary of State for the first time, as thus published by the Foreign Ofllco, ma]iaitinent and read that dispatch to the Secretary of State, leaving a copy of it, at his request, in his hands. " I then explaineti to him the reason, as set forth in your lordship's otho' dispatch of the 6th instant, which had induced you to follow his example as to the form which you had adopted to ex))res8 ycnir di^s(•nt from the statements contained in his dispat«h to Mr. Motley of the y.'ith of September lust, after which I proceeded to read to liira the paper containing your lordship's observations, and, at his request, gave him a copy of it, " Mr, Fish heard me rend both the above-mentioned documents without making any remark whatever, and upon my concluding merely said that they would be taken into consideration by his government, at the same time expressing his hope that some nieaiiH might be found of coming to an amicable arrangement of all the questions at issue." ( It will bo seen, therefore, that there is an apparent d'screpancy, which I ha.o no doubt Mr. Thornton will be able to explain to Mr. Fish, between the accounts respect- ively given of this interview. In reply to the inquiry contained in the concluding portion of your letter, I have the honor t«> request that you will inform Mr. Fish that the paper containing my observa- tions on hie dispatch of the 2.^th of September was furni.shiMl to Mr. Thornton to be read to Mr, Fish, with the same object of using an unreserved frankness in its statements, with which Mr, Fish's di8i)atch v juj addressed to you, in order that it might be read to me. For the reasons given in my other dispatch to Mr, Thornton of .the 6th oi Novem- ber, her Majesty's government had determined not to rejily categorically to Mr. Fish's dis)mtch, and the jiaper thus (!oinmunibateositioll in wliiih this coinitry stood. These observations, therelore, correctly represtMit the views of her Majesty's govern- ment. They were in the nature of an historical statement, founded, as is shown on the face (if them, on the correspondence which has i)assed between the two governments, on papers presented to Congress, on th" judgments of United States prize courts, and on other public records, and were intended as a recajiitulation of facts and argnmentSi all, or nearly all, of which have been repeatedly referred to during the previous (iis- cuwsion, while the ob8ei"vation8 omitted all reference to various topics which might have been introduce*! into them, had it not been the desire of her Majesty's govern- UNITED 8TATK8 AND GREAT BRITAIN. 19 (in pur- Jfor infor- r.s (or Ob- li>toiiil»er, Id copies reply to ^blH day's |ed « Oor- M to both bed to in ITLEY. 18, 1870. til iiiHtant; rwanlert in ■nicateil to •iber, pub- or couveni- itch of the "cretaiy of flispatch of «>riii wbioh ill <1i8|)af«li md to liirn liiin a copy taking any tiiiceu into tliat some estions at f have no ts lespeot- r linve the r olweivtt- t» be rend atenieiita, it be read I Novera- Hr. Fish's 18 accord- ed to lier »e United i govern- 'II on the mmeiits, iirts, and ;ument8, iuus dis- h might gov«Tn- ment to niiirow um much as poHsiblc wliat tht'y think the unpro(lt«))Ic Held of contro< verny. Indeed, almost tbo only opinion adverted to in them Is one in which her Mn^lenty's government are glad to recognize that (he United States government eoncnr, and which consiHts in u citation of the pnipnsal made by her Majesty's government in Oecomber, 1865, for a revision of tlio international law of maritime iiiMitrnllty. I have the iionor to be, with the highest eoiiHideration, sir, yonr'mosl obedient, hum- ble servant, CLAUENnON. John Lotiihop Motlky, Esq., ^fc, if-r., ,fr. Mr, Motlqf to T^nl Clarendon. LlUlATIOS OK TIIK UNITKI) STATKS, lAtndon, March 19, 1870. My Loui>: I have the honor io uoknowledgo tho receipt of your lordship's note of the 18th instant in answer to mi lo of the I2th, ccmveying tho request of my govern- ment for information in referonci to tho precise elmraeter to be assigned to tho "Notes (or Observations) on Mr. Fish's i]is|mtcli of the 'ifitb of Sejiteinber, IHC)!)," an(l to state that a copy of yonr above-meiit'oned note of the IHtb instant Iiiim licen Cnrwardefl to the .Secretary of .State by itiis.da.v'H steamer. Renewing, iVc, .lOIIN T.OTHKOP MOTLEY. The Kiprht Honorable the Eaki. cif ri.AUKNDox, <(c., ffc. .t'c. No, 0. Mr. Fish to Mr. Motleif. No. 190.1 13EPABTMENT OF STATE, Washington, April 25, 1870. SiK : 1 have to iickuowledge your dispatch. No. 278, of 17th March, in which you transmit a copy of your note of 12th Marcli to the Earl of Clarendon, which presents to liis lordshij), witii great accuracy, the circumstances under which one of his lordship's dispatches to Mr. Thornton of Cth November last, and a paper at that time entitled "Notes," and subsequently called " Observations," were presented to me and came to the knowledge of this government. It also presents, cor- rectly, tho surprise with which I first saw, in the London Gazette of 24th December, the second dispatch of the Earl of (Clarendon to Mr. Thornton, also dated 6th November. You had been .advised by me, in a dispatch of 14th of February, of the particulars of an interview between Mr. Thornton and myself on 19th of November, when he read to me the former of these two dispatches of the same date, ((ith November,) and left me, without its being read, but with an understanding to consider it read, under a O/ontingerst itiserva- tion, the paper then entitled " Notes." Your note to his lordship of 12th March embodies, acciurately, my statement to you. 1 have also to acknowledge your No. 282, of 19th March, communicat- ing a copy of Lord Clarendon's reply, dated March 18, to your note of 12th March. In this reply, Lord Clarendon quotes Mr. Thornton's dispatch to him of 22d November last, and adds: "It will be seen, therefore, that there is an apparent di.'sorepancy, which I have (he had) no doubt I 20 QUESTIONS PENDING BETWEEN THE ti' ■: Mr. Thonitou will be able to explain to Mr. Fish, bc.weea the accounts respectively given of this intcr\ iew." I sincerely regret this reference of his lordship, after a careful review of the statement in my dispatch, No. 149, of 14th February, of what oc- curred at the interview between Mr. Thornton and myself of 19th No- vember last. I am unable to lind any alteration which either my own memory or the private note of the interview made on the day of its oc- currence will allow to be made ; neither do 1 lind anything therein stated which a very friendly interchange of views at a recent conference with the accomplished and estimable representative of her Majesty to this government suggests as at variance with the actual occurrence at that interview. It is true that 1 have from Mr. Thornton that he quite confidently thinks that he not only read to me Lord Clarendon's dispatch, published as No. 6, in the supplement to the London Gazette of 24th IJecember, 1869, but that lie also read to me his lordship's other dispatch of the same date, (November (»,) published as No. 7 in the Gazette. Herein our memories are at variance; my recoliectioTi suggests very confidently that only one note was read. in this recollection 1 am sustained by a memorandum which 1 made on the day of the interview, by the fact that I could not hsive heard that second dispatch read, and have failed to be impressed by and to have noticed the declaration therein that Lord (Jlarendon regards mine of 25th September as not being of a strictly oiiicial character, and as being communicated to him personally, rather than as the representative oi' the Queen's government; by the further fact that this second dispatch did not authorize its being read ; and, again, by the fact that on the 22d of Noveml)er, only three days after the interview, when Mr. Thorn- ton oilicially communicated its result to his government, he did not allude to his having read the second dispatch. With the exception of this one point, I am not aware of any diii'er- ence with reg.ard to the interview of 19th November, which a very free and frank conference with Mr. Thornton has suggested ; I fail to sec; anything which will justify an alteration of the account given in mine of 14th February, and repeated by you in your note of 12th iMarcli. 1 might, however, havc> added to that statement what I now stat(^ viz: that on the next occasion, afrer the interview of 19th November^ when again i met Mr. Thorntoii, and in puvsi.ance of the understand- ing with which the "Notes'' had been left with me, without being then read, 1 told -lim tliat 1 had read them and determined to retain the copy, which he was thereby authorized to consider me as having re- (pxested at the close of its (constructively) being read to me ; tliat 1 did not accept nnmy of the views presented, and thought them open to re- ply; but that, as Lord Clarendon in his dispatch had expressed the de- termination of her Majesty's government not to follow me in the points discussed in mine of 25th September, 1 should not pursue the discussion wiiich might be suggested by this paper. Nothing could be more ex- plicit than t!>e words used by his lordship in the dispatch No. (J, of 0th November, whici' JMr. Thornton was directed to read to me, tluit " her Majesty's government have det(irniined not to follow Mr. Fish through the long recapitulation of the various jiolnts that have been discussed in the voluminous correspondence that has taken place between the governments for several jears." rhe Ear) of Clarendon, in his secoinl dispatch to Mr. Thornton, No- vember 0, 1809, (No. 7, in the Gazette,) draws a distinction between the " Observations" ("Notes") which it indosesand the views set forth UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN. m ft ■ iu bis No. G, of tlie same date, to the same gentleman, which v/a.s otli- cially communicated to me. His No. assumes to express the otHcial views of her Majesty's gov- ernment. Three paragi'aphs are ilevoted to describing- his interview with yourself and his reception of a copy of my dispatch of 25th Sep- tember. Four paragraphs follow, reciting the" substance of that dis- patch. Seven successive paragraphs then state the views of her Ma- jesty's government on difterent points, (including the determination, above cited, not to follow me in the discussion,) an