IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 IM 113.2 2.5 1 2.2 I.I (i£ |10 2.0 25 \A III 1.6 Hill! 6' Photographic Sciences Corporation <:. %o ^^. <^ ^4v <^\^ »^x ;\ %v ^ rder that the exact extent of the subject on which the two countries are now treating may be kept in mind. We have never claimed 'iny right to take fish in the rivers, as the sal- mon, shad and herring, or shell-fish upon the shores of the Provin- ces, so that the only subject whicli is touched by the provisions of the treaty, or whicii is ceded by Great Britain, is the right to take mackerel within tlie three-mile line of the Provinces. Or, in other words, all that Great Britain yields lo us is her right to the mackerel swimming in the sea within three miles of her shore — a matter which has accrued to her in fact %ince the ratification of any treaty save the reciprocity treaty of 1854, which has been abrogated. Therefore as the subject in dispute was not considered when the treaty of 1818 was made, if now Great Britain claims that it is affected by that treaty it would seem to be our right to declare tliat treaty abrogated so far at least as this unconsidered matter goes-^ 1 of fishprv tonal law a;ht to fish Labrador, Uh] States ies wliicli , the con- her. The ' line, and '^owfound- ro the lish :. of rights r colonies the treaty us of the the simple 8 of Ncw- 1 purposes my extent are very aibject on ivind. We lis the sal- he Provin- jvisions of ;lit to take r, in other 3 mackerel -a matter any treaty abrogated. when the that it is eclare that ter goes — < as not within its provisions. In so doing we should follow but well known diplonnitic precedents, and specially the example of Russia, which has within a year declared she would not be bound by tb.e treaty of IH'iO in regard to her use of the Hlack Sea, l)ecause the circumstances atfecting it had changed since the treaty, and England has acquiesced in that abrogation by Russia. Great Britain now proposes to concede to us the right to fish within the three mile line, with further permission to land u[)ou tlie shore for the purpose of drying nets and curing (ish, provided, that in so doing we do not interfere with tiic rights of private property. Tins privilege of using the sliore is ^one of certainly not very considerable value, if for no other reason, because it would bo difficult to fuid many portions of those shores whicli are not private property, and where exercisiiig tiie privilege of liauliug tiio seine or landing it and drying it, would not be an interference with the proprietary rights. Now out of the four hundred thousand barrels of mackerel caught between Cape May, or the 39th parallel, and the Northern extent of their limit by our flsiiennen, only some thirty thousand barrels were last year taken east of the State of Maine, in all waters Britisli or other. In frankness it should be stated that, owing to the annoyances which our fisiiermen suffered, and from other special causes, that catch was smaller than usual. But it maj' be safely put at an average not much exceeding thirty thousand barrels. During the reciprocity treaty and since its abrogation, when fishing under full British license, our fishermen took sometiiing less than one-fifth of their catch within the three mile line. So that the amount of concession by the present treaty to us is the rigiit of Great Britain in five thousand barrels of mackerel when swimming in the sea within three miles of her shores. Now, as fishing is only about a fifteen per cent, business, or, in other words, as eighty-five per cent, of the value of the fish taken con- sists in the use of capital employed, labor expended in taking, curing, packing and preparing for market, it will be seen how inconsider- able is the right actually attempted to be ceded to us by the present treaty. Its extent is, in fact, when reduced to a money value, from five thousand to seven thousand dollars annually only. ^ "wiPimif 1 6 Its money value, even in the Jiulgincnt of tlio Novii Sootiani themselves, mny be roiiehed in another form. After tlie termination of the reeiprocity treaty, the province of Nova Scotia granted full lieenHe to our flshermen to IIhU within the tlnec mile line at the rate of iilly cents per ton. Tliese licenses gave them in addition— wliat tlie present treaty omits to provide for— full riglits of sheller, lau'uiiate of ''-it and provisions, in the bays and harbors of the Provinces. As there was about fourteen tlionsand tons employed in those fislieries, it will be seen that the money value set by the Provinces upon this riglit came to seven thousand dollars oiily. Subse(iuently, however, the Provinces determined to force areciproci'y treaty upon the United States, raised their licenses first to one dollar, then to two and a half, and su))sc- que.itly to live dollars per ton ; tiiese latter sums being so high as to bo prohibitory, our fisliermen have ilecliued to pay. Ueckoning, therefore, tlie money-value in botli forms, it may safely be stated to be in the close vicinity of seven thousand dollars per year. I see it stated in what purport* to be a protocol to the treaty, that the American Commissioners opened the negotiations witli an offer to pay a million dollars in gold for this right, or sixty thousantl dollars annually for all time for a right which Nova Scotia ottered to sell and did sell for seven thousand dollars a year. Where our Commissioners got their extraordinary valuation it is ditllcult to' conjecture. It is not wonderful that the Knglish Commissioners thought they had sometiiing too valuable to dispose of when Yan- kees would offer a million dollars for the right to begin with. As the Englishmen ha'd ulterior objects to be gained, they would puf no money-value upon the fisheries, as they intended to force open our ports by their means. In order to judge clearly of the pecuniary value in fact of the right thus claimed by Great Britain to herself and colonies, observe what it has cost her and the Dominion of Canada to guard the three mile line during the past year. By the reports made to the Cana- dian parliament, it would appear that it cost something over four hundred thousand dollars for the expenses of the revenue vessels employed in the guarding of this line and seizing our vessels. The British government had an equal number of guns and men employed in the same service, it is fair to presume at about the same < PHHP* ■^WKmam II Sootians LTinination ranted full line .it the ihoiii in idc for — iH, in the vas ubout ■ill be seen flit catne to i Pr :vinec8 ;atca, raised and siil)se- ; HO higli as ms, it may and dollars ;oeol to the lej^otiations ;ht, or sixty Vova Scotia ar. Where i (Umeult to* nniissiouera when Yiin- 1 with. As y would pu£ force open fact of the . lies, observe ird the three ;o the Caua- ig over four enue vessels jssels. ims and men out the same < ri f.S^ 'J cost ; so that it cost eight hundred thousand dollars to j^nard the right of the value of seven thousand per annum, which amount will be 8'4ved by thr\ ratification of the treaty to the imperial gov- ernment and its adjunct. We are, first, by the provisions of tlie treaty in cxrhangP to permit, for this seven thousand dollars, all British fishermen to fish in all our waters, for all kinds of fish (except shell-fish and river fish) and to land on our siiorns to cure their fish and dry their nets, from the 4r»th to the 39th parallel, or from Eastport to Delaware Bay. Now, mackerel first appear about Cape May in the spring. A thriving trade is done in catching them for the New York market, and other markets which we are to sliare with the British. The fish then follow up the coast during the summer to latitude about 60 in the British possessions ; then returning, the fishing season ends some time in November, substantially in Massachusetts Bay. Brit- ish fishermen are therefore to follow the fish, going and returning. In the waters of the British provinces there are no menhaden, which are the best fish for mackerel bait. It takes about one barrel of bait for every eight barrels of mackerel caught, and menhaden furnishes the best bait. This the British fishermen have always had to purchase of the' United States. Menhaden catching form"', a valuable branch of our fishing as well for the oil as the bait. All this the English now buy of us — as they can get it no where else. Under the treaty, they can catch their bait on our shores for them- selves. The privilege granted them of fishing in our waters is of itself alone worth more than all they concede to us. Second ia addition, the treaty opens our ports to British fish free of duty. Therefore the British fishermen may contend with ours by right in supplying our seaport cities with fresh fish. They may take the halibut in our waters, which is now a very . large arti- cle of consumption, and bring it into our ports free of duty in com- petition with our fishermen. Indeed, the halibut fishery has become so important that vessels are now being fitted out in Massachusetts to pursue that fish on the coast of Greenland. As the British give a bounty equal in its operation to one dollar a quintal and the French ten francs a quintal on codfish, and as all French fish will be at once brought into our ports in Can&dian bot- ■^-^'iMiaiiS... • • 8 toiuH, our cod llslu'iiiuMi, who jict no (■(luivalont -.vhiitcvcr by tlu" Ironty, iiro to Mtiungli'iijiiiiiist tliis l)oiiiity-lV(l coiniK'titioii. Not only tlnit, but our wIniU' flslH'rini-n ami Hoal-oll llHlierniiin ai'ft to have BritiHli com- lu'tilion all over tlio world by tlu- opt-ninjf of our ports IVw to tlu-ni. It has lu'cn doi'larod by sonic tliat this (int'sti(ni of frt-c importa- tion of llsii is a Miatter of small consfiiucncc. Tho amount yearly is mucu greater than any supposed money valiu? iu the Alabama claim, the hi<,diest estimate of loss from which has been set at four- teen millions, while the value of our (Isheries is over seventeen millions animally. Ciin a more iiieipiitable barjiain be stated ? Hut it is said that this treaty leaves our tlshermen in the same condition that they were under the reciprocity treaty, the provisions of which, by the by, were so onermis npou our people that we abro- gated it. Not ((uitc, Because our reciprocity treaty rejjardid Canada and Canadian lishermen alone. This treaty •)pens our tlsherics to all British lishermen, ihe phrase being '• and the fisher- ies shall be in common with the subjects of her Britannic- Majesty." lint that is not all. By the 22d article of the treaty, we are to pay to (Jreat Britai.i in adilition such sum of money as three arbitrators shall find that the value of the Britisli fishing right is greater than the value of ours conceded to them. But there is no provision that, if the value of what we cede to Great Britain is greater than the value she cedes to us, thcj United States shall be paid for it. Why not make the questions of paying the excess in the value of the rights ceded by each nation reciprocal ? Certainly, in view of the statement I have made above, taken with accuracy from statistics, such a right to have the British pay what our con- cession exceeds theirs in amount would be a very valuable one. But the Commissioners to which this is to be referred are to be one named by the Tresident, one by the Queen, and the other, in case the President and the Queen cannot agree upon the umpire, by the Austrian Minister near the Court of London, who will certainly not be exposed to too much American influence in that selection. In my judgment, reinforced by the opinions of the most judi- cious and prudent meti engaged in the fisheries with whom I have conferred, the provisions of this treaty will be substantially ruinous to our fishing interests. But two answers, however, are made to ^ ^^""^""mm \ \ I 9 tliiH stiitciiieut wliicli (loHurve coiisuloratioii : KirMt, that tlUH is ivot u gri'iit, luattiT bcc'iiUHi!, If i* is fouiul injurious, tiio treaty may i)C tcrmiiiatcil at tlio oiid ol" tisii yi'ais, alli-r twoyoars' notioo. lliit if it R foiiiiil, as I lu'lievi' it will Ik', lU-triiiU'iital to our llHluTii'H, twelvo yt-aiH will oiUiri'ly cU'stroy that buHiui-Ms. In that tiuio the lacn eiigajtcd in it \.ill havi' turiUHl tlu-lr uttoution to other pursuits, arul the school iu which hardy scaiiu'ii are trained up for the United States Navy, and whicli has had the fosleriuK eare of our ffovcruuuMit from the Revolution until now, willhave heen hro- ken up. Heeauseof the nuages of the Ahihaniaandher kindred ves- soIh, we have almost no connnerce in which to train such seamen. All tlie mischief will have boon done ; anil it will bo substantially use- lesH then to attemi)t, alter the la[)se of twelve years, to renew a business out of which, by the provisions of this treaty, enterprise and capital have been forted for that time. . The second answer is, thi«t the treaty puts oin- llshermeu sub- stantially in no worse position than they oft^upied durinnty vessels iich bravery his interest [le. 1 may lot tend to ists. They I directly in md France, ^ [ 11 should be the one selected for the free trade experiment, and, too, the one lirst to be yielded up to English greed. The treaty is as remarkable for what it leaves unsaid as we have found it to be in what it includes. In the face of the fact that half a dozen of our vessels iiave been seized and brought before the Canadian courts for conliscation during the past year, for making harbor aud shelter, and buying bait and provisions in the bays and ports of the Provinces, tliere is no provision in the treaty assuring us immunity from such seizures hcrealter, or making any provision for reparation for injuries inflicted in tiie past. Upon this point tlie treaty is absolutely silent. True it is that under the law of nations, as a part of the commercial nmrine of a friendly power, our fishing vessels ought not to be seized, although they may remain more than twenty-four hours in port, although they may purchase bait and provisions on shore. But we kuoAV they have been seized, we know that they have been tried, and in one or more cases condemn- ed, from the unfriendly spirit which animates the Provinces ; and yet neitlior indemnity for the past, nor securitj'^ for the future is acquired for them by the treaty, against these wrongs. Again, the question oT the " rights which belong to the citizens of the United States and her Majesty's subjects respectively in reference to the fisheries on the coast of her Majesty's possessions, near Nortii America," being especially submitted to tlie Joint High Commission by botli governments, is it not remarkable, that the pro- tocol shows and tlie treaty finds that no thought has been taken of the fisheries upon our Nortliwest coast ? The}' now are becoming exceedingly vahiable ; and while the Commissioners seem to have spent days, if not weeks, over the possession of a comparatively insignificant island there, yet they Iiave bestowed not an hour's con- sideration upon the great queition of our rights as to tlie fisheries near the British possessions on the Northwest coast. Oregon is rapidly filling up ; California is fitting out vessels for the seal and other fislieries in the Northern waters, and in a very few years, if her Majesty maintains her possessions upon this Continent, questions of far more magnitude, far more irritating, and of more tendency to provoke collision, will arise as to the Northwest fisheries, about which tliere have been no negotiations whiitever, than have arisen in regard to the fisheries ou the Eastern coast. .^1 ;;;.'., - y-.,..% ^ ii, *ii;rt ii i iiii ri i'f W ' Wi°^''' i '^W^ ^ ■i'''«'^^"'' •■•■^■t^--'''^' ■''^■■•i ^r^'-^^i-"i\rfi-'*''^''" •■■^■■*^'''''^'^ -, tj-r"-^' •'■'^■■^i ^„.^^sf f m 1 grieve, therefore, that so complete an abandonment of Ameri- can fishing interests shonld have been made by our Commissioners, and I trust the Senate will not ratify this portion of the- treaty, unless there shall be found in other portions sufficient countervailing advantages, so that we can afford this great loss. It is expressly stated in the protocol however, that the fisliery questions were con- sidered by tliemselvcs. Tins forces me to consider — what I had much rather not do — the claimed advantages accruing to the United States from the otlier portions of the treaty. I say that I should prefer not to examine these other matters, l)ecause I have been accused of desiring war bet',veen Great Britain and the United States, and it may be inferred that my views of the advantages of the treaty are tinged with that desire. No true patriot can ever desire war for his country ; and I am certain that, witli a knowledge of its expenses and horrors, noth- ing has ever been farther from my thought tlian a wish for a conflict of arms. I have never dreamed tliat war between this country and England is now possible while we are demanding only wlfat is right with a determination to submit to nothing^ that is wrong. When I had occasion to address the country upon the subject of the differences between this country and England at Music Hall, in the Autumn, so far from speulving in the interest of a war I endeavored to show its impossibility by showing how disastrous it must be to Great Britain. I never luive had fears of such a war. A govern- ment which has demonstrated itself powerless to lay a tax of half a million dollars upon friction matches without raising such emeute among its people as to cause the proposition to be abandoned, is not one likely to go to war in which thousands of millions will be expended. A government whicli has reduced its laboring population, from which the material to sustain a war must be drawn, so that every twelfth man is either in a jail, almshouse or insane hospital, will not be easily drawn into a contest of arras with a powerful nation which has and can put millions of men into the field when nothing but right and justice are demanded by the latter power- Until England can afford more than two ounces of meat a day each to hei" people as now, and her other food largely drawn from this ountry besides, war witli her is only imminent to the fears of the timid- '¥. 1^' \f^^ .^ V> ! fci.>^i*uj ' iijaiirffi ii)ii i i iiiajitf < iB ii g>f^i»iMri i^ t | ^ 13 -r r / \ If England would not interpose to save her ally and only protection on the continent of Europe from being dismembered and crushed out by Prussia, she is not likely to go to war with America, the first six months of which would overturn her government. Therefore you see that I lay aside all ideas of supposed advan- tages gained in the interest of peace between the two nations, believing a war between England and America a moral -and physi- cal impossibilitj'. Putting away our fears, what, then, do we get from this treaty? First, " An expression of regret, in a friendly spirit, for the escape of the Alabama and other vessels from British ports, under what- ever circumstancns, and the depredations committed by those ves- sels." This apology, then, is to be the salve for the wounds of our national honor, and full reparation for the just indignation of our people for all the unfriendliness done to us by Englr.nd during the war of the rebellion, whose support of the confederacj' cost us mil- lions of treasure and thousands of lives. " Escape " is a word of limited signification. It means evasion from pursuit, leaving under difficulties, or impediments, and the " escape and depredations " are all that England regrets. Regret in a friendly spirit now, acts in a hostile spirit then. I find no regret expressed for the reception of the Alabama in a British port, her being supplied with coal and pro- visions there, her oflJcers toasted and feasted, and a British governor appointed under the crown, accompanying her out of the harbor when she removed on her piratical expedition ; nor the like recep- tion of other vessels. I fintl no word in protocol or treaty of cen- sure of British officials for such acts of assistance, aid and comfort to a piratical enemy of the United States. Not a word of apologj'^ for the delay of the law officers of the crown. Not a word of apol- ogy for the misconstruction of evidence by her law officers, which aided that " escape." Leaving a British port under these circum- stances seems to me not well defined and atoned for by the word "escape." But then I am not versed in diplomatic language, and may mistake what is due to my country for hostile acts. I find in neither protocol nor treaty any explanation or apology even asked by our Commissioners of England for her demand of Mason and Slidell, the rebel emissaries, on a technical point of International Law, that -U' . M t^tj . ; ^>|h. j^^ . ^ jiyti a ».| j j^^ n the bravo Wilkos il'ul not l>rinitration is pretty e.asily seen. I will say notliing as to the Iving of Italy and the President of the Swiss Confederation ; but I cannot forget that the gallant Com- modore Collins captured the rebel pirate Florida in the port of Bahia where sho had taken shelter under the protection of the Em- peror of Brazil, where she had received the same comfort and aid that were given the Alabama in British ports ; and I cannot forget that the Emperor of Brazil, in precisely like case, will hardly be tempted to appoint a connnissioner who will decide that Great Britain was wrong in harboring the Alabama while his majesty the Emperor may be called upon to pay for the damages inflicted by the Florida in like case ottending. I do not forget that the Emperor of Brazil retpiired of us to return the Florida to the port of Bahia in the same condition that we found her, so that she might pursue her piratical course because her capture was in conflict with that neutrality which he chose to afford to us. The return of which piratical crafl to prey afresh upon our connnerce was only prevented by the accident of her sinking from being run into by an army transport when under my Jurisdiction in the James River, just before she was to start back. And I cannot forget, also, that very cogent diflferences of opinion arose between the representatives of this country and his majesty the E mperor of Brazil in regard to his war -iti>innii'»>i>aiiiri'itiri4iiTifnii»l^^ .- v ^ft aaBfe\': ' g'i:ctgj; ' 'i'"iiv-W(rt ^^ ^ uttmm ^' . m v ' . ^ ¥ 'r '•v-t^ip r*-«JT«»W->-Y~V 1$ 1 against Paragnaj-, which led to some not the most friciKlly rohitions. I cannot forget that Brazil lias tlic bad eminence now of being in tlie world tlie only nation retaining slavery, and the chosen home and refngc of the recalcitrant rebels who Hed for safety from, as they supposed, the impending halter after the surrender of Lee. Perhaps these facts make the Emperor of Brazil a perfectly fit nmi)ire, as he has the ai)p()intinent of that umpire, of the Ala- bama claims. But I should prefer an umpire chosen by a different power, and would have suggested his majesty the Kmperor of Russia, who emancipated his slaves Just before we did ours, thereby setting us a good example It is to be observed that tliis " tribunal of arbitration," so chosen, may award a sum in gross, whicii shall be a full and llnal settlement of all our Alabama claims, and for convenience of repre- sentation of thoscclaims, of producing the witnesses and testimony, and of showing all our losses, that triltunal is to sit at Geneva, in the mountains of Switzerland. But it must be by no means forgotten that to' guide this arl)i- tratlon, three rules are laid down in article fith, as also for the future government of n^^utral nations in time of war with the express reservation that her Majesty's government cannot assent to the rules as a statement of principles of international law, which were in force at the time when the claim mentioned in article first arose ; but that in order to make satisfactory provision for the future, in order to evince its desire to strengthen the relations between the two governments, it is agreed that they shall be taken as rules by the arbitrators, jf not inconsistent with other principles of inter- national law. First, then, that a neutral government is bound to use due dil- igence to prevent fitting out or equipping any vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe. is intended to cause or carry on war against a power with which it is at peace, and also due diligence to prevent the departure of a vessel intended to carry on war as above, such vessel having been especially adapted in whole or in part with- in such jurisdiction to warlike uses. Secondly, not to permit or suffer either of the belligerents to make use of its ports or waters as a baae of naval operation against the other, for the purpose of 33S m mi0fi>^wit^ i \ < j1iliM^»^tcd in whole or in i)art within Great Britain to warlike uses." Now the British have always claimed to escape the penalty of liability for the Alabama, on the ground that when she left Liver- pool she was not " especially adapted to warlike uses," her arma- ment being taken on elsewhere. Secondly, that she did not use any British port for military supplies, only coal and provisions, which are upt necessarily military supplies. It will also be remembered that a British jury in a like case brought to trial under the instruc- tions of a British judge exiu'cssly found no breach of neutral obli- gations was done by a British subject. And the third article does not enlarge the simplest provisions of the British neutrality act. But suppose I am wrong in this as api)lied,to the Alabama claims, and that these rules arc meant to be an admission by Great Britain that she is amenable for the conduct of her agents at Liver, pool and Nassau in relation to the Alabama, and that her fitting out was a breach of reutralily within the meaning of the third rule. Then, before she will consent to pay for what the Alabama did, she pro- poses to bind the United States by these rules forever to prevent all fitting out and sale of vessels adapted to war purposes, and the treaty expressly provides that these rules arc to be binding npon other nations as well as binding upon Great Britain. Therefore mii\-ii 6 ■■ i >i »V iai a i j < a » W ' «MiiJLi>i» iM' t» > '> "S'i r^te ^ ^ft. ^T'^^ -fei^ ^.^ilitilT^^ | ^^ i ™ Iiirdl}', to nitliin the iligivtions d govern 3y can be the uon- froin tlie f Imilding ijoyed her re up ours ervc us in erved that case only e " espec- to warlike lie penalty left Liver- her arina- ot use any ons, which imcmbered he instruc- Mitral obli- iticle does ity act. I Alabama , by Great 8 at Liver- fitting out ule. Then, I, she pro- prevent all s, and the ding upon Therefore hereafter, in any war, the United States arc to be responsible for all damages inflicted by any vessel which shall escape from our ports, and with the enterprise of our people such vessels certainly will escape. So that hereafter our hands are to be tied when British emergency may l)e our opportunity. To illustrate : whenever Great Britain gets into a war, and in one of our many ports a vessel is fitted out which injures her com- merce, we in all after time are to be held for all damages she does, consequential or otherwise. By these rules no duty is imposed upon the British Government, as there was a duty which we under- took during the rebellion, to bring to the notice of our government any such fitting out or escape. We aro obliged by the treaty to attend to all that ourselves solely, employ our own agents, and no duty or f *~" obligation is put upon the British or other belligerent government to give us any information whatever, of how much soever she may be possessed. She would not listen to the representations of our minister, Mr. Adams, tliat the Alabama was being fitted out. She requires us, by the new rules, to act without giving us any infor- mation whatever. • If this treaty is ratified, and the rules of international law are thus established, binding us more stringently than do our own neu- tr* lity laws, which can be repealed at pleasure, then indeed is a great vantage ground of the United States to regain our commerce, lost by British depredations in any future war, gone forever, and the commercial superiority of Great Britain on the seas is indeed as- sured. It seems, theref'^re, that the question of national honor, of in- sult to our flagi of attempt to break up our government as a commer- cial rival, is to be submitted to five gentlemen who may decide that • all shall be paid for in a gross sum of money. It has already been submitted to ten, called a Joint High Commission ; and if the five new gentlemen to be hereafter indiflferently selected do not take a different view of our case than those of our own appointment, I see not much hope even of pecuniary gain as a partial reparation of all we have lost. Certain it is, that the treasury of the United States is in no event to gain anything, because this gross sum, so far as one can see, will not be greater than what will be necessary to be "'^■^ Mm* ! divided among the private claimants in satisfaction of tiicir losses. I observe that the private elainmnts under the Alahaina, some through the newspapers, are pres-ing very urgently the ratification of the treaty. Let them not bo too fast. If a gross sum is ))aid into the treasury of tiic United States, it may not I»e easily got out; and as an illustration I point them to tlie Frencii spoliation (•hiiuis, the money for which was dne son je time in 1H;J0 from the treasury of the United States, but of which, so far as I am informed, the pri- vate claimants have, thus far in the yeai' of our Lord 1871, realized nothing. It is fair to s.iy, however, that tiie treaty provides that this arbitration may only determine grounds of Knghind's liability, and a board of assessors are then to bo named who shall settle "the amount to be paid l)y (ireat Hritain to the I'nited States on account of the lial)ility thus arising from such failure as to each vessel ac- cording to tiie extent of such liability to be decidi-d by the first named arbitrators." In practice, however, it will amount to this : wc all know that arbitrations always split the difference between contending parties. The extent of liabifity is to be determined by the first board, and they will compromise that, and of course shrink, as nuich as possible for them to do, from the responsibility of j^e- termining amounts. Then there is a second board of arbitration which will again split the difference as to amounts claimed, as is the manner of arbiters. So that our claims are in danger, according to the well known practice in such cases, of being first halved by. the tribunal of arbiters, and then halved again by the board of assessors. This, of course, is very convenient to the party who has to pay, Great Britain, but not to the United fStates, who make the claim, and are to run the risk of the double danger of submitting their claims to a cutting down process by two boards of arbitration. Having thus provided laws for the apparent diminution of our claims both in extent of liability and importance of amount, the treaty provides, as an offset to any possible recovery that we might get, that " all claims from citizens of the United States against the government of Great Britain arising out of acts against their per- sons and property during the war, not known as the Alabama claims, * • ..--ui>.It..B..-.-.^T.^.«;.- •trtMU n ::)■ ,'K? ^ .A ami all clftims of the subjects of hor Britannic Mnjcsty iirisinjj out of nets coniinittc(l iifiiiinHt tlioir persons or |)roperty (Inrini^tiio war which havt^lieen or niay be presented" to a hoard of coinuiis^ioners, siiall be determined liy tiieni and paid in acconhmce wit ii tlicir adjudication. The provision as to tlie claims of our citizens for liritisii agf^ressions (lurinji tile war can apply only to tiie St. All)ans raid or one or two like matters of small import; liecausp we sutf'ereil no otiier than our injuries at sea. I am not awa of any sulistantial claim by the citizens of tlie United States ajjainst the British government (lurinji; the war except the St. Albans raid. Tliis provision apparently is put in as a sort of sop to tiio State of Vermont to insure the vote of her two Senators for the treaty in derojjcati(Ui of theotlu'rNew Eng- land interests sacrificed ity it. But the claims already submitted, and which will bo submitted, of British subjects supposed to bo injured during the war by tho United St ites are of vast amount. Kvery bloHvade ruimer caught and imprisoned, every luan in the South whose property was taken, who can by possibility claim ever to have boon a British subject, or who by bill of sale or otherwise can get title to property taken or injured by the United States forces during the war, into the hands of a British subject, will appear as a claimant before this conunission. And these claims will run up to a very much larger sum than any possible claims that we can have on account of the Alabama. And tho balance provided for by adjudication under the treaty to be drawn from the treasury of the United States will be very great. While wo remember the immense emigration from England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, not to say Canada, we can easily conceive how many British subjects may have been injured in per- son or property during the war. There has been, it is estimated, something over four million emigrants within the last twenty years into the United States of subjects of Great Britain. A very small sum for injuries done in the war to a very small portion of them would amount to a very large aggregate indeed. Under the doctrines of local allegiance leaving losses by the war to fall upon foreigners domiciled here to be borne as arc those of our own citizens, we are not now, and shall not be, unless we agree to the laws of this treaty, responsible to foreigners for injuries suffered in war in any other I I ' manner tluin to our own citizens. In tiio prcHcnt condition of tilings tlio tree must lie wl.erc it ftUlK, ftuJ tlie loss must remain w.tli those wliere it luipi.cns, us other losses durinfj tlie war. But if we agree to tliis all the losses of foreign neutrals nuist l)e puiil. If it be said that many of these Uritish subjects are naturalized citizens, to that it is answered that the case was very fre.iuent dur- ing the war where men claimed in the south British protection aud concealed the fact of their naturalization, wliich would be oidy known to themselves, aud there are many in the category of British "claiumnts who have acted as American citizens for years and who claim now their British protection. Indeed, the adoi)tion by the government of this class of claims, an.l the i)aying of tluf same, will open the door to take untold millions Irom the treasury ; for it ia very dillleult for congress to say, if the government pay British subjects for tlieir losses sulfercd during the war, why we should not pay all loyal men north as well as south for all their losses during the war. Are wc to treat British subjects l>ctter than our own loyal citizens? and are wc not by this treaty opening a door through which untold milUous upon millious will pass out of the treasury of the United States "f There are two classes of claims, however, provided for in this treaty that a loyal American citlzju can never consent to ; ami they may be put in as many treaties as Commissioners may choose to ne-otiate or the Senate to ratify ; but I, as a Representative of the people, will never vote a dollar appropriation for them. And those claims are these: First, compensation for slaves owned by British subjects taken during the war. I, myself, enlisted such slaves, and took them from the possession of their British owners to fight the battles of America; and *ra I now to be called upon to pay for them ? Yet they were property under the Constitution of the United States, so far as British subjects were concerned,and the proclamation of emancipation of President Lincoln, which took this class of ■ property from British subjects, was an act of war ; and under this article of the treaty I see no answer before a Commission to a claim ' for slaves when made in due form before them. I see by the proto- col that the Commissioners there say that a British penal statute inflicts a penalty of fifty pounds upon a British subject for holding slaves, u of tilings mi II with But if we I. iituralizcd liiont (Uir- 'C'tioii and I be only of lliitish and who i)n by the same, will ; for it is ay IJi'itish iliould not ios during own loyal n- through reasury of for in this ; anil they choose to tive of the And those by British slaves, and to fight the k to pay for ' the United •oclarnation lis class of under this a to a claina y the proto- atute inflicts ding slaves, r- \ therefore no nrltisii subject can claim pn.perty in slaves under thin treaty. That is simply a inunicii.al statuto affofting a Uiitish sub- ject while in Kngland. It cannot affect liiiii hero any more than any other muiiiciiml law of Knglaii.l can allect his action here. He can- not be tric.1 nere under that statute ; he can be liable to no i.enalty here under 'hat statute. He has a right wiiile owing local allegiance to us to own all proiierty that is legally to be owned by our laws, and he is to be protecte.1 Wy our laws in those rights. And this treaty is the supreme law of our land when we agree to it. There is a i)enalty of fifty pounds for any llritisii subject o ning a pack of cards which shall not be stampe.l in a specific way ; but docs any one presume that that penalty api.lies to a British subject while domiciled here? And why should not it apply as well to a penalty against owning slaves? And again, if we are to pay British subjects for property m slaves, why not pay our own loyal citi/.ens for the same class of property? And will not the claim fbr slaves l)e pressed upon us with unanswerable force? It appears, however, in the protocl that the British Commissioners said tha' uo claim for slave property will be presented by the British government. But suppose the adminis- tration is changed, who shall answer for what a new British ministry may or may not do when there is no treaty to the contrary? Why not say so in the treaty itself?- Nobody is bound by a protocol that is the ofler of a bargain, not the bargain itself. Why not say, claims for all acts committed against British subjects except for slaves, and thus save all possible precedent and all possible dispute upon tins topic? Audi pray our Senators, as republican and anti-slavery men, to move that amendment in the Senate of the United States, and let the country see who will vote against it, even in secret ses- sion. Again, we have by constitutional amendment, and in everyway that a government can, pledged the nation against payment of any part of the Confederate loan in Europe; audit maybe said, and said truly, that this loan is not included by the term,acts arising out of the war committed against the persons or property of British sub- jects. But we must remember that that Confederate loan was se- cured by pledge of vast amounts of cotton in the South 22 owned liy the ('oiift'ilcracy, as collatcrnl security fDi-tlmt loiiii, wliioli Itocdiiie tlierelty the propeity of HritiMli NiiliJectM Iir)l(liiijr tlie |ii;iii for wliioli It wuh plotlfied. 'riiin cotton was destroyed or captured to the anioiiiit of iniiiiy, nmny millions, ftn expfessly reliHeil to i>aHH the nei-essary laws to eaiiy into elleet its provlsionM, ami it, lemalns nnexiu'iiti'd I'vcn to tills day. And the Ilonse of Uepiesen- tntives, from the time of Washin-rton, have jjiven notice, and t'.io present llonse have renewed that notice, as well to the Senatt? as to tlio woild, that {\w ri^iit* of the Inileil States are not to he bartered awuy l»y tho troiity-niakin^ power without the assent of tlie House. I Inivp tusked your patience ho inwch in the consideration of these two principal matters of the treaty that I liardly dare ask your attention to any other criticisms upon it. True, we get the navijjjation of tlie St. f.awronpo and tho Welland Canal, by paying for them. That we have n(t\v. I never havp heanl of any Tnited States vessel i)ein)ond to be carried in transit across onr country to any part of the British |)ossessions. And we are to permit any goods from the British jiossessions to be carried through our country from tho • Provinces, also in bond. Now, with the example before us that it was found impossible under our internal revomie laws by the severest penalties and ex- actions of fines and imprisonments to prevent frauds upon the rev- enue in the transportation of whiskey in bond, to such a degree that the privilege had to be abolished, we can jtidge what a frightful source of smuggling and fraud upon the revenue is opened by the transit of British goods both ways, in bond, over a vast extent of country, with six thousand miles of custom houses, with every pos- sible ramification of railroads through all portions of a country more or less uninhabited. ' ■HH. I I.K II I mmmmni!'' u U But I need not stop to elucidate this further. In fact this practice of carryiiiif bondotl goods through our territory to be finally disposed of in another jurisdiction will be found very disastrous to our revenue. The onl)' other thing that we receive is a suljmission to arbitra- tion of the question of title to the island of San Juan. With the example before us of what has always been done when we have submitted to arbitration Britis)j claims, especially in the case of our title to q portion of the State of Maine to tiie King of the Nether- lands, I have not nnich hoi)e from this arbitration. Nor does our situation in this regard seem to be improved b}' the fact that the treaty provides that our title to this island is submitted to the sole decision of the Emperor of Prussia whether present or to come. There was not a lawyer on the Connnission who would not have refused to sit as judge in a case where his son's wife might be in- terested. Why then provide such a judge for his country? Specially when there was a disinterested Emperor of Russia who might have been selects. I save that he has been thought to be friendly to America. We shall lose San Juan, I doubt* not, but it is not of verj' much consequence. Because, with reasonable firmness of administration on our part, San Juan and all the rest of British America will come to us before long. And that is the only saving reflection I have to this treaty, and will relieve in part my objections to it more or less, excepting always the rules as to neutral nations, which holds us and our posterity forever bound to the superiority of British commerce. It is to be noticed that this part of the treaty, as that in re- gard to the fisheries, is quite as remarkable for what it leaves un- provided for as for what it provides. It is well known to both governments that there ai-e claims in large amoimts for damages, and of still larger consequence in the principle they involve, against Great Britain for the confinement of American citizens in British prisons without right and without any apparent justice. With the example of England before us of going to war with the barbarous King of Abyssinia because five English subjects were held in cus- tody only, by that savage prince — which every civilized nation justified — how can our government be excused from not insisting. Jf> ■i iM» ' iM' ' ijif;' i' 'ra ! ? '' "Sgaa f 'J'< .^im i i .i. iiii i iii .) i i i r» iii i» u i ji »mf0mKfi!imfir~ In fact this ry to be finally 7 disastrous to ion to arbitra- an. Witli tlie klien we have ho case of our >f the Ncther- Nor does our fact that the ted to the sole t or to come, ould not have 'e might be in- ;ry ? Specially ho might have )e friendly to lit it is not of e firmness of rest of British he only saving , my objections eutral nations, i superiority of as that in re- it it leaves un- known to both 3 for damages, ivolve, against zens in British ice. With the the barbarous } held in cus- i'ilized nation not insisting. U I W as part of the settlement of the questions between Great Britain and this country, that the claims of oiir citizens, whetliur native born,or naturalized, for injuries wrongfully sutt'ered by them at the hands of the British government should be now and here adjusted, settled and paid? The leason for the refusal of our Commissioners to have this class of claims considered was that the Britisli Com- missioners put forward claims by Canada against the United States on account of the Fenian raids. That seems to be an excuse, not a reason ; for if tliere is any just cause of complaint against this gov- ernment for not using due diligence and care in preventing its citi- zens as soldiers going to Canada, tiien we ouglit to pay the full amount of damage and loss occasioned by our neglect of duty. It does not answer the claim that our government should make a demand upon the British government for all just losses and injuries of our citizens to say that if we do wc shall be called upon to make good like injuries and wrongs that we have done or suffered to be done. If there are any just claims against us let them be paid, so that our citizens suffering in foreign prisons may get some reuumer- ation. • Again, the great cause of grievance by Great Britain, which must ever be a source of trouble and ill-blood, has not been touched in this treaty, and that is the respect due to our naturalization laws, and to our citizens who were once her subjects, and who have become so according to the process known to our constitution. It has been the practice of Great Britain since 1812, whenever convenient, to ignore and set at naught all claims of her former subjects to be American citizens by virtue of their certificates of naturalization ; and we as a nation have been the subject of almost daily insult in having the riglits of our citizens entirely disregarded. What excuse have the American Commissioners or tlie government to offer why this prolific source of ill-blood, ill-feeling, and almost of necessitj' wrong-doing by England to the citizens of the United States within their borders be done away with by effective rules binding the future conduct of that power and indemnifying our citizens for tlie past? Calling your attention to one other matter to wliich this treatj' covertly, but very effectually commits us, I will relieve you from far- ther discussion of these topics. It will be observed that the United States are making a treaty with Great Britain — two independent rp 26 powers ; and yet Great Britain requires us in every part of the treaty, step by step, to acknowledge the Dominion of Canada as a quasi independent power. This treaty is to be in force between the two governments if a portion of the people of one government will agree to it. We siiall have this or that, done or not done, as we can get the (ionsi-nt of Canada. "Well, what is Canada, but a British province? Why shall we be put in the dishonoring position of being a suitor to the Dominion of Canada, for what we shall do or what we shall not do — what we shall receive and what we shall not receive? True, a sop is thrown us by a provision that the United States shall ask tho States to open their canals as fast as they are built to British commerce. Again, I confess my ignorance. I never have heard any objec- tion made by any corporation having any canal, to any boat, British or other, going through tt, who would pay tolls. Canal boats do not generally carry the flag of their countr}', so that it would not be an offensive object flaunting the British ensign in our faces. And I bave yet to hear of any occasion for any such stipulation. And, so far as I am advised, it is a new species of diplomacy — a recog- nition of State rights, not even laid down in the resolutions of '98 — that the treaty-making power of the United States with foreign nations is to be subject to ratification by the States, legislatively or otherwise. I had supposed, up to this present moment, that I had known of every possible assertion of State rights ; but, in defiance of what Solomon says, that there is nothing new under the sun, here ip a new assertion of State rights — an implication thaj the leg- islatures of the States may overrule the treaty-making power of the United States. Trusting that the Senate will exercise its sound Judgment upon this treaty, cause the AiUest discussion, take time, and wait to hear tlie response of the country after the treaty has been read and com- mented upon, not by hired newspapers in the interests of parties seeking payment of money under the treaty, but by an independent press and the intelligence of the country, and trusting it will not be made a party measure on the one side, or the other, as it is not, but that it shall be viewed in a spirit of intelligent patriotism, pnxious only for the safety, honor, welfare and best interests of the country, believe me, Yours very truly, BENJ, F. BUTLER. j¥'. iJ* part of the !!anada as a jetweqn the "•nment will (lone, as we lada, but a ing position we shall do hat we shall )n that the 1 as fast as i any objec- 3oat, British boats do not Id not be an COS. And I tion. And, 3y — a recog- solutions of with foreign ;islatively or t, that I had ;, in defiance ider the sun, that the leg- power of the V [gment upon wait to hear ■ad and com- ;s f)f parties independent t will not be it is not, but isra, pnxious the country, BUTLER.