IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 fe 
 
 {./ 
 
 
 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 |50 '"'^" 
 
 ^ m 
 
 us 
 
 2.5 
 22 
 
 120 
 
 1.8 
 
 1.25 U 1.6 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 6" 
 
 ► 
 
 V] 
 
 /A 
 
 ^K^^^J 
 
 fi: 
 
 
 V 
 
 &.. 
 
 / 
 
 '/ 
 
 z;^ 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 4^ 
 
 V 
 
 4^ 
 
 :\ 
 
 \ 
 
 tV 
 
 
 
 o^ 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. 14SS0 
 
 (716) 87tI-4S03 
 
/. 
 
 
 i/.A 
 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductlons / Institut Canadian de microreprod 
 
 uctions historiques 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notas/Notas tachniquas at bibliographiquaa 
 
 Tha Instituta has attamptad to obtain tha bast 
 original copy availabia for filming. Faaturas of this 
 copy which may ba bibliographicaily uniqua, 
 which may altar any of tha imagas in tha 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 □ Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 I I Covers damaged/ 
 
 D 
 
 Couverture endommagie 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaur^ at/ou pellicula 
 
 □ Cover title missing/ 
 Le 
 
 n 
 n 
 
 n 
 
 □ 
 
 titre de couverture manque 
 
 Coloured mapa/ 
 
 Cartas giographiquas an couleur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noi 
 
 Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Planchaa at/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Reli* avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may causa shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La re liure serrie peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distorsion le long de la marge intArieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certainas pages blanches ajout^es 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais, lorsque cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas 4tA filmies. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires supplimantaires: 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a itt possible de se procurer. Las details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger una 
 modification dans la mithoda normale de f 11 mage 
 sont indiqute ci-dessous. 
 
 I I Coloured pages/ 
 
 Pagea de couleur 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagtes 
 
 Pages restored and/oi 
 
 Pages restaurias et/ou peilicui^es 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxet 
 Pages dicolories. tachatties ou piquies 
 
 Pages detached/ 
 Pages ditach^es 
 
 Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 Quality of prir 
 
 Quality inigala de I'impression 
 
 includes supplementary materic 
 Comprend du materiel suppl^mentaire 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 r~~| Pages damaged/ 
 
 [~n Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 
 r~7 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 
 I I Pages detached/ 
 
 PT] Showthrough/ 
 
 I I Quality of print varies/ 
 
 [~~] includes supplementary material/ 
 
 r~n Only edition available/ 
 
 D 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Las pages totalement ou partieilement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'arrata. una pelure, 
 etc., ont M filmMs A nouveau de faqon d 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est filmi au taux de reduction indiqu* ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 14X mi 22X 
 
 26X 
 
 30X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 J. ,„ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 24X 
 
 32X 
 
 The c 
 to the 
 
 The ir 
 possit 
 of the 
 filmin 
 
 Origin 
 begini 
 the la: 
 sion, 
 other 
 first 
 sion. 
 or illui 
 
The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 National Library of Canada 
 
 L'exemplaire fiimd fut reproduit grdce d la 
 g6n6rosit6 de: 
 
 Bibliothdque nationale du Canada 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettetd de l'exemplaire filmd, 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 fast page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprimto sont filmis en commen9ant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 dernidre page qui comporte une emi^.^inte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont film6s en commen^ant par la 
 premidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la dernidre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol —»> (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la 
 dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbole — ► signifie "A SUIVRE ", le 
 symbole V signifie "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 hand 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 
 filmds d des taux de reduction diff^rents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre 
 reproduit en un seul clichd, il est film6 d partir 
 de I'angle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la mdthode. 
 
 32X 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
THI 
 
/ 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE 
 
 UESPECTING 
 
 THE GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 p Vi 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 
 
 1872. 
 

 V \ 
 
 No, 
 
 From 
 
 
 to 
 
 1 
 
 Gen. 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 V^^ 
 
 2 
 
 Mr. Fi 
 
 
 8(; 
 
 
 (Te 
 
 3 
 
 Geii. i 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 (Te 
 
 4 
 
 Gen. g 
 
 
 Earl ( 
 
 Geu. S 
 Mr 
 
 ...<1 
 (Teh 
 
 Mr. Fis] 
 
 Sclii 
 
 (Tele 
 
 Mr. FiNl 
 
 8eli( 
 
J 
 
 TABLE OF COiNTENTS. 
 
 No. 
 
 1 
 2 
 3 
 
 From whom ami 
 to whom. 
 
 Date. 
 
 Subject. 
 
 Gen. Schenck to 
 
 Mr. Fi,sh. 
 
 (IVlegram.) 
 
 Mr. Fish to Geu. 
 
 Schenck. 
 
 (TeU'^^ram.) 
 
 Gen. Schenck to 
 
 Mr. Fish. 
 
 (Telegram.) 
 
 Gen. Schenck to 
 Earl Granville. 
 
 1872. 
 Feb. 2 
 
 Feb. 3 
 Feb. .5 
 
 Feb. 5 
 
 Geu. Schenck to 
 Mr, Fish. 
 
 ... do 
 
 (Telegram.) 
 
 Feb. 10 
 
 Feb. 27 
 
 Mr. Fish to Gen. 
 
 Schenck. 
 
 (Telegram.) 
 
 Mr. Fisli to Geu. 
 
 ^clienck. 
 
 Feb. 27 
 
 Feb- 27 
 
 j Londcm jonrnnls demand withdrawal of 
 claims for indirect damages. Ministry 
 alarmed. 
 ' There must be no withdrawal of any part of 
 claim. Kepudiation of Treaty not antici- 
 pated. 
 
 Comnnniicates Earl Granville's note of 3d, 
 giving British interpretation of Treaty. 
 " Her Majesty's Government hold that it 
 is not within the province of the Tribunal 
 of Arbitration to decide upon claims for 
 indirect losses and injuries." 
 
 Kei)ly to Earl Granville's note of 3d. United 
 States will be gratified with assurance that 
 Great Britain does not desire to interpose 
 obstach^s to prosecution of Arbitration. 
 Object of United States is identical with 
 that of Great Britain to establish amica- 
 ble relations between the two countries, 
 and to set an example how two great mi- 
 tions can settle disputes by reference to 
 Arbitration. Will inform his Government 
 as to British opiniou regarding indirect 
 claims. 
 
 C<mmients on the argument as used in Par- 
 liament to sustain the position taken by 
 Her Majesty's Government in relation to 
 their interpretation of the Treaty. 
 
 Interview with Earl Granville, who states 
 that Sir Edward Thornton had informed 
 him that Cabinet at Washington had re- 
 jected Mr. Fish's draught of reply to his 
 note, and had taken further time for con- 
 sideration. Earl Granville was prepared 
 to reconmiend to Her Slajesty's Cabinet 
 that they should not press for withdrawal 
 of American Case if the agent of the United 
 States shall inform the Arbitrators, before 
 their meeting in June, that the United 
 Stat<;sdo not ask award on indirect claims. 
 
 lit'liorted rejection untrue. Entire unanim- 
 ity. Granville's suj^estion in.odmissible. 
 
 Referring to Earl Granville's note of l^d to 
 General fck'henck, the President sincerely 
 di'sires to promote an abiding friendship 
 between tlie two nations to which the note 
 so hajipily refers. Reviews the object of ap- 
 pointment of the Joint High Commission 
 "to provide for an amid'able settleinejit of 
 all causes of dirt'erence between the two 
 countries." The United States desire to 
 uiiiiutaiu the jurijMliction of the Tribunal 
 
 60 
 
f^ 
 
 *! I 
 
 V 
 1.1 
 
 l\ 
 
 IV 
 
 TABLE OP CONTENTS. 
 
 No. 
 
 From whom and 
 to whom. 
 
 Date. 
 
 10 
 
 11 
 
 12 
 
 13 
 
 14 
 
 10 
 
 Mr. Fish to Geu. 
 
 Scheiiok. 
 
 (Telegram.) 
 
 Gen. Schenck to 
 
 Mr. Fish. 
 
 (Tehiffram.) 
 
 Mr. Fish to Gon. 
 
 Sclienck. 
 
 (Telegram.) 
 
 Gen. Schonck to 
 Mr. Fish. 
 
 do. 
 
 1872. 
 
 Feb. 27 
 
 Feb. 28 
 
 Feb. 29 
 
 Mar. 16 
 
 Mar. 21 
 
 Gen. Schenck to 
 
 Mr. Fish. 
 
 (Telegram.) 
 
 Mr. Fish to Gen. 
 
 Schenck. 
 
 (Telegram.) 
 
 Mr. Fish to Gon. 
 Schenck. 
 
 Gen. Schenck to 
 Mr. Fish. 
 
 April 
 April 
 April 
 
 16 
 
 April 18 
 
 Subject. 
 
 over air unsettled claims — that the ques- 
 tions of law involved thtMein being adju- 
 dicattid, all ((uestions arising out of tlio 
 "Alabauia Cl.iims" may be forever re- 
 moved. 
 
 Comnit-nds his reply to Earl Granville's note 
 of 3(1. Acc(4)tance of friendly assurances 
 of British not(!, but thinks position taken 
 thert!i n unsustained by the history of the ne- 
 gotiations l)etween the two Governments. 
 
 Earl Cirauville desires certain changes made 
 in language of his proposal. 
 
 Cannot agree to Earl Granville's proposal. 
 Desire of this Government to meet that of 
 Great Britain in any honorable adjustment 
 of the incidental question which has arisen. 
 
 Stating that he had left a copy of Mr. Fish's 
 instruction of 27tii ultimo with Earl Gran- 
 ville with ..igard to the province of the 
 Tribunal of Arbitration to decide upon cer- 
 tain claims presented by the Agent of the 
 United States. 
 
 Transmits r(!]ily of Earl Granville of March 
 20th to Mr. Fish's i nstructicm of 27th ultimo 
 to him, (General Schenck,) and printed 
 memorandum in three parts. His note 
 treats npon incidental or consequential 
 damages. Reviews the .Johnson-Claren- 
 don Treaty. Part 1 of the memorandum 
 treats "on the waiverof claims for indirect 
 losses contained in the 36th Protocol." Part 
 2, "on the construction of the Treaty of 
 Washington." Part 3, "on the amount of 
 the claims for indirect losses." General 
 Schenck, in reply, states that he will for- 
 ward the above to his Government with- 
 out delay. 
 
 Asks wliether there is any objection to British 
 Government tiling Count(U' Case without 
 prejudice to their position in regard to con- 
 se(|uential damages. 
 
 United States understand that British Gov- 
 ernnuuit is bound to file Oounter Case. The 
 rights of both parties will \w the same 
 after filing Counter Case iis before. 
 
 Reply to Earl Granville's note of March 20th 
 to General Schenck. Review of corre- 
 8i)ondeuce during and since the then pend- 
 ing negotiations between Mr. Johnson and 
 Lord Clarendon for a convention for the 
 settlement of the " Alabama Claims" ques- 
 tion. 
 
 Interview with Earl Granville, who stated 
 that British Government believe that a 
 general desire [»revails among the people 
 of the United States for the withdrawal of 
 claims for indirect losses. General Schenck 
 replied that the Government and citizens 
 of the United States were particularly de- 
 sirous that the qpestion and extent of the 
 liability of a neuiral should be arrived at, 
 so that the rule and law for all might be 
 known in the future. 
 
 . 
 
 .* ' 1 
 
 & 
 
 ^ 
 
 i ^"' 
 
 Fro 11 
 
 t 
 
 
 ^ 18 
 
 Mr. I 
 
 
 ": 
 
 t: 
 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 11 
 
 12 
 
 U> Gen. 
 
 20 .Air. F 
 
 i '''• 
 
 (Tv 
 
 21 Gen. i 
 
 Ml 
 
 (Te 
 
 22 
 
 48 
 
 48 
 
 23 Mr. Fi^ 
 
 i Scl 
 
 (Tel. 
 
 62 
 
 24 Gen. fie 
 Mr. 
 
 (Tele 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 No. 
 
 lat tlie qiies- 
 
 1 bfing iuljii- 
 
 ; out of tlie 
 
 forever re- 
 
 mvillo'H note 
 y assn ranees 
 isition taken 
 toryot'tlicno- 
 veriinionts. 
 lianj;cs made 
 
 le's proposal, 
 meet that of 
 e adjustment 
 ch has arisen, 
 of Mr. Fish's 
 ;h Earl Gran- 
 ivinee of the 
 jide upon cor- 
 Ageut of the 
 
 ille of March 
 >f5i7tli ultimo 
 and printed 
 ,8. His note 
 consequential 
 lUson-Claron- 
 nemorandum 
 IS for indirect 
 otoeol." Tart 
 ho Treaty of 
 iie amount of 
 ;s." General 
 t he will for- 
 rnnieut \vi th- 
 ou to British 
 ise witliont 
 ojjard to cou- 
 
 Britisli Gov- 
 erCase. Tiie 
 1)t^ tlio same 
 efore. 
 
 f March 20th 
 i\v of corre- 
 le tlicn pend- 
 Johnsou and 
 tion for the 
 Haims" ques- 
 
 who stated 
 lievc that a 
 Iff the people 
 ithdrawal of 
 eral 8elienek 
 and citizens 
 ticularly de- 
 xtent of the 
 )e arrived at, 
 all mi«;lit be 
 
 From whom and 
 to wliom. 
 
 1872. 
 18 • Mr. Fish to Gen. j April 23 
 Sclienck. 
 
 10 
 10 
 
 11 
 
 12 
 
 1!> Gen. Schenck to April 25 
 Mr. Fish. 
 
 20 ■_ Mr. Fish to Gen. j April 27 
 .Sclienek. ! 
 
 (Telegram.) 
 
 21 Gen. .Schcnck to '< April 30 
 Mr. Fisli. I 
 
 j (Telegram.) 
 
 22 
 
 .do .. 
 
 May 
 
 48 
 
 48 
 
 23 Mr. Fish to Gen. '■ May 
 Schenck. 
 (Telegram.) 1 
 
 G2 
 
 24 Gen. i^eheiick to Mav 7-> 
 Mr. Fisii. 
 (Telegram.) 
 
 i 
 
 The indirect claims wore not eliminated from (53 
 the general (;ouiphiint of the United .States. ; 
 Keitlier tlic Government nor tlii^ Anuuiean 
 l)eoi)le have ev<u' attached mucli import- 
 ance to the so-called indirect cl'ums. Tlie 
 United Stati's do not desire a pecuniary i 
 award on tiieir account. Tlui President is 
 desirous ot itrcventing a failure of the Ar- 
 bitration or repudiation of the Treaty. 
 It ap|)ears pr()i)iil>le now that the I^ritish (J4 
 (lovernnn-nt will take such course as will 
 put an end to the Arhitratioii and to t\w 
 Trciity. Common conviction in (Jreat 
 Britain that the best and most inllueiitial 
 men of the United States desire to have 
 our Governnicnt recede from its position. 
 Neither in the {.'use nor in any instructions 05 
 have the United States asked for |)ccuniary 
 damages on ac(M)Uut of indirect losses. It ' 
 is thought (wseiitial that the <|Uestion bo ; 
 decided whether claims of similar charae- ; 
 ter can in the future be advanced against 
 the United States as a neutral by Great 
 Britain when the latttir is a belligerent. 
 Earl Granville states that British (iovern- fiC 
 ment objects to having Arbitrators expre.ss 
 opinion on indirect claims when the two i 
 Governnie-.its agree that they tuv. not the i 
 subject of award. Sends draught of a j 
 possible note from Earl (iranvilhs in ! 
 which it is stated that Her Majesty's (iov- 
 ernnu'ut adhere to their view that it is 
 not within the jirovince of the Arbitratcu's 
 to consider or decide upon claiuis for indi- 
 rect losses. j 
 Sends inti'oductory part of nate trans- j G7 
 niitted by telegraph April 30. Iler ! 
 Majesty's (ioverniueiit do not wish to i 
 commence a di)il(>matic controversy on the ! 
 subject of indirect losses, but merely to : 
 comply with the desire of the Governnicnt 
 of the United States to be advised of the 
 reasons which had ])roni])ted the declara- j 
 tion made by Her ^lajc.'sty's Government | 
 on th(! 3d of February. i 
 The President cannot Justify his assent to , 67 
 the terms of the proposition of the lirit- : 
 isli (Government, as commiinicate<l in tel- i 
 egrani of 30tli Ajiril. Hi! cannot assent j 
 to any i»roposition which, by imiilication . 
 or ini'ereiice, withdraws any ])art of the ' 
 claims or of the Case of this Government ' 
 from consideration of the 'i'ribunal. The 
 I'resident adheres to the opinion that it is 
 within the province of the Arbitrators to 
 consider and determine the lialiility of 
 Great Britain for all the claims put for- | 
 ward by the United States. i 
 Will urge Earl (iranville to modify his pro- ; OS 
 posal. Asks for suggestions as to what I 
 niodilications would make it jiossiblc for | 
 the President to assent to it. Api>ieliemls | 
 that, rather than submit indirect claims I 
 to judgment of Tribunal, the Piilisli Gov- ' 
 crnmeiit would cease negotiations and 1 
 
r 
 
 VI 
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 H 
 
 U 
 
 r 
 
 {•■ -• 
 i ■■ 
 
 
 fi; 
 
 li' 
 
 No. 
 
 25 
 
 2G 
 
 From wlioiu iind 
 to wlioiii. 
 
 Gen. ScIhmicIc to 
 
 Mr. FiHli. 
 
 (Tclcgiani.) 
 
 Mr. i'isli to (Jon. 
 
 !5('lien(;k. 
 
 (Telegram.) 
 
 No. 
 
 Froi 
 
 27 
 
 .do 
 
 28 
 29 
 
 Gen. Sclionck to 
 
 Mr. Fish. 
 
 (Telegi'iim.) 
 
 Mr. Fi.sli to (ieii. 
 
 Selienek. 
 
 (Telegmm.) 
 
 30 , Gen. Selienek to 
 Mr. Fish. 
 (Telegriun.) 
 
 31 I. 
 
 . . . do 
 
 32 
 
 .do 
 
 1872. I 
 
 make an altsolnte deelaration afrainst jiro- 
 ceedinjj with the Arliitration. Asks if the 
 iollowiiifj; were suhstitnteil tor that sent 
 on .\]>ri] ;i(), wonM United States yive its 
 assent: Her Majesty's (Jovernmeiit now 
 reatly to state that if the, Inited States 
 do ajjree not to jjress for ))eeiiniary award 
 before the, Triliunal, Her Majesty's (iovern- 
 meiit will not, in the event of heeomin;; ii 
 lieliifierent wliih' the United States is a neii- 
 j tral, advance any elaims against the United 
 I States on aeeoiint of any indirect, remote, 
 { or conse(|uential resnlts of a failure to 
 I observe tlieir nentrality. 
 May 6 Trjinsmits amended i>ri>]iosal. Same snhject 
 as contained in No. 24. 
 
 |May 6 j An aj^reenicnt hinding fntnre action of this 
 (iovernment can lie made only by treaty, 
 and wonid re(|nire the assent of the Sen- 
 ate. If Tribunal decides aj^ainst peen- 
 niary damages for consecincntial resnlts 
 of failnre of any nation to (diservo its 
 nenlral obligations, sncdi decision wonld 
 be regarded as settling the ([nestion be- 
 tween the two Governments in the 
 fntnre. 
 
 May 7 This Goveitnnent is of ojiinion that thesnb- 
 niission of what are called the, indirect 
 claims is within the intent of the Treaty, 
 and their consideration within tlie pro- 
 vince of the Trilinnal. The I'n'sitlent is 
 anxious to reach a settlement of tlwi iin- 
 jiortant (iiiestions before the Tribunal; is 
 willing to consider and will jiresent, if 
 possible, for consideration of the Senate;, 
 any new article which may be proposed 
 by the Ib'itish Goverunn'ut. 
 
 May 7 Apprehends that liritish (Jovernment will 
 declare against submission to arbitration 
 of ipiestion of indirect damag(\s. 
 
 May 8 ' This (iovernment cannot withdraw from the 
 jirovince of the Triliunal what it believes 
 to be entirely within tiieir comjietence. 
 If the Uritisli (iovernment persist in tlieir 
 demand for th(! withdrawal by tlie UuittMl 
 States of indirect claims the res|ionsibility 
 of u failure of the Treaty unist rest with 
 them. 
 
 May 9 British Government, instead of 7iro])osing 
 new article to Treaty, prefer interchange 
 of notes, and are willing to further modify 
 their uoU'. 
 
 May 9 Have stated to Earl Granville decidedly as 
 I to any interchange of notes that the I'resi- 
 j d(!nt, Mithont the assent of the Semite, 
 will not go beyond the suggestion made 
 in your telegram of Ajiril 27. Earl (iran- 
 vilie declines to have conducted at Wash- 
 ington the negotiation for a new article 
 I to the Treaty. 
 
 May 9 ; Earl Granville proposes to modify his 
 j amended note, as telegraphed ou the 6th 
 instant. 
 
 33 ! Gen, 
 
 6 
 34 
 
 .•!,". 
 
 Gen. 
 
 (59 
 
 r)9 
 
 ••JO 
 
 Earl ( 
 Sir 
 ton 
 
 I . 
 
 70 
 
 7ii 
 71 
 
 ."37 
 
 Gen. 
 
 M 
 
 as 
 
 39 
 
 Mr 
 
 F 
 
 .Sc 
 (Tel 
 
 40 
 
 Mr. Fii- 
 
 Scl 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 vn 
 
 to 
 
 Pi 
 
 1 iigMiiist Vf"- 
 , Asks it' tin- 
 or tliiit stilt 
 lutes ^ivi- its 
 "niiiiciit ni>\v 
 'nitfd Stiitt'H 
 iiiiiiiiy iiwanl 
 
 'Sty's (ioVl'Vll- 
 
 f riccoiiiiiij; a 
 itatt'sisaiuMi- 
 iisttlifUiiitfd 
 [in-vt, n-iiiiitt', 
 a failure to 
 
 Saino biiliject 
 
 action of this 
 Illy by treaty, 
 iit'of till! Seii- 
 a^jainst pecii- 
 leutial ii'siilts 
 
 oliseivo its 
 ieeisioM would j 
 e. <iuestion be- 
 neiits in the 
 
 n that the suh- 
 «l the iiitliiect 
 
 1 of the Treaty, 
 
 'lit 
 
 hill the pn>- 
 
 I'resiileiit is 
 
 of the iiii- 
 
 Trihiiiial ; is 
 
 11 ]ireseiit, if 
 
 the Senate, 
 
 ho proposcitl 
 
 ernnu'iit will 
 to aihitiiitiou 
 ij>;es. 
 Iidraw from the 
 hat it helievea 
 coiniieteiiee. 
 )ei'sist ill their 
 by the riiited 
 resi)oiisil)ility 
 list vest with 
 
 No. 
 
 '.\i 
 
 •M 
 
 :}.-) 
 
 Kroiii wlioiii and 
 
 to wilOIII. 
 
 Gen. Scheiiek to 
 
 Mr. Fisli. 
 
 ('i'elegraniO 
 
 Date. 
 
 May 
 
 1(1 
 
 00 
 
 f)0 
 
 of ^n'o]>osiiig 
 r intevchany;e 
 further modify 
 
 le decidedly as 
 that the I'resi- 
 )f the Senate, 
 
 restion made 
 >7. Karl (iran- 
 ictod at Wash- 
 
 a new article 
 
 to modify his 
 hed on the (itli 
 
 .do I May 10 
 
 Gen. Sehencit to 
 Mr. Fish. 
 
 ■JG Karl Oraiivilloto 
 Sir K. Tlioru- 
 ton. 
 
 May 11 / 1 
 
 May 13 
 
 ."37 I (ien. Schcnck to 
 Mr. Fish. 
 
 38 
 
 ...do ... 
 
 39 Mr. Fish to Gen. 
 Schenck. 
 (Telej^ram.) 
 
 May 14 
 
 Earl (iranville informs (ieneral Se]ien(']< 
 that a Cabinet inei'tin<r will lie hi^ld this 
 morning, and w ishes to meet him after- 
 ward. 
 
 Transmits a <liau;;ht of an article, submitted 
 l>y the Ibitish (iovernment, to the ell'eet 
 that the President will make no claim on 
 the part of the i;nite<l Slates in respect 
 f indirect losses to tlie Triluinal. 
 loses copies of two notes and their 
 accompaniments tVom Karl (tranville. 
 Tlu; tiist. dated the Kith instant, re- 
 cai>itiilatcs, in a ficiieral way, what had 
 recently jiassed Itctweeii him and (ieneral 
 S(dieiick; and tiii; niemoijindiim which 
 miconipanied it relates to a ]>roi»osed ex- 
 chaii;;!! of notes upon the snbjecit of a sup- 
 plemental article. The seeoiid is a brief 
 note ilated also the Kitii, and was accmi- 
 jianied by the (haii<;lit t)f the article 
 n-fcrred to in his first. 
 
 Reply to Mr. Fisli's disi»ateh of Kith 
 April to (ieneral Sciieiick, with a review 
 of the arjjfuments and corres])oiid»!nce of 
 the United States in support of its claims 
 apiinst (ireat Ihitain for indire<;t or 
 national losses and injuries extenilin<; 
 , lieyond the direct claims of American 
 citizens forsiiecidc losses arisinjj from <'ai!- 
 tures by the "Ahilianiii," '• Florida," " Shen- 
 andoah," and "(ieoifiia." Why tholhitish 
 Hi>j;h (.'onimissiouiMs did not remonstrate 
 against the presentation of these claims. 
 The nature of the claims referred to in 
 the Treaty not left to iiiterence, but were 
 closely delined and limiti'd. Aryucs that 
 the Arbitrators cannot be j;(>vern(,'d in any 
 Itarticular by that p(M'tion of tlu^ Treaty 
 ih'tininjr the powers of the Claims Coni- 
 mission. 
 
 1 92 
 
 May 25 
 
 May 20 
 
 41) ! Mr. Fish to Geii. 
 I Schenck. 
 
 May 28 
 
 Transmits ii copy of a paper which ho read | 
 to Earl (iranville on the lOtli, beiiijr a I 
 summary of vit^ws of the United States 
 on th(! indirect claims. Karl Granville 
 n'jdicd that Ifer Majesty's (iovernment 
 would ])robably conclude to take the ini- 
 tiative and propoiic a Treaty article. 
 
 Incloses cojiies of corres))on<leiice between 
 liiniself and Earl Granville in rej^ard to 
 proposed identic notes to be communi- 
 cated to Arbitrators at (ieneva, in case of 
 new Treaty article beiufj adopted. 
 
 The Senate has amended the proposed arti- 
 cle submitted by the JJritish Governnient, 
 and advise and consent to its adoption 
 as amended. General ScJienek is instruct- 
 ed to inform Earl Granville that, in pur- 
 suance of this acti(m of the .Senate, the ' 
 President will nejrotiate a new article. ' 
 The article, as proiiosed by Great Britain ; 
 and as amended by the Senate, is append- 
 ed. 
 
 Acknowh'dffes his dispatch of 14th, and lOJ 
 commends his review of the (xnestion of 
 
 98 
 
 9!t 
 
it 
 
 'I 
 
 
 
 h 
 
 5 l!-. 
 
 ■; 
 
 !;; 
 
 i; 
 
 rt. 
 
 VIII 
 
 TAIJLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 No. 
 
 4] 
 
 42 
 
 43 
 
 44 
 
 45 
 
 4(i 
 
 From whom iiiid 
 to wliuw. 
 
 1872. 
 
 God. Sclirmck to I May 2S 
 Mr. Fisli. 
 (Tclei;ram.) 
 
 Mr. Fish to Gen. 
 
 Schcnck. 
 
 (Tc'lc};nim.) 
 
 Gen. SfliciKik to 
 
 Mr. Fish. 
 
 (Telegram.) 
 
 Mr. Fish to Gen. 
 Sclienck. 
 
 Mr. Fish to Gen. 
 
 Schonck. 
 
 (Telegram.) 
 
 Gen. Silicnck to 
 
 Mr. Fish. 
 
 (Telegram.) 
 
 May 2H 
 
 May 28 
 
 May 28 
 
 May 21) 
 
 May 30 
 
 47 Gen. .Schenek to I May 30 
 Mr. Fish. 
 
 48 
 
 Gen. Selienck to , May 31 
 Mr. Fish. 
 (Telegram.) 
 
 Subject. 
 
 indirt'ct claims as rcatl l»y him to Karl 
 (iranvillc a lew ihiys |)revii)iis. Keasnns 
 wliy the I'nitnl .States insist on retaining 
 the indirei t claims hi.-tbr(« tiio Triliuiial. 
 
 States that Her ^Majesty's (ioviMMunent eon- 
 sidcr tlu) .StMiate's delinititm of )M'inci[de 
 wiiich both G()vernni(!iits aie in('])ared to 
 adopt tVn' the fntnre too vagne, and jiret'c^r 
 the article as they had diangiited it ; l>nt 
 are willing to accept the article as the 
 Senate pi'opcises, with the sulKstitution of 
 certain words. 
 
 United Stales declines to ;igre(! to the pro- 
 jiosed altering of the sui»plenH;ntary arti- 
 cle. 
 
 Transmitstext of note from Karl Granville to 
 the effect that Her Majesty's Government 
 are not abh; to find intiie article as amend- 
 ed liy the .Senate any means or standard of 
 iiitcrjiretatioii, and are uiniblo to signify 
 an assent to a form of article of wliieh 
 they cannot discover the scope. 
 
 Informing him that lie told Mr. Thornton 
 that no alteration of any kind of the arti- 
 cle as amended by tlui Semite could be 
 entertained, and that it wasnseless to <lis- 
 cuss the j)roi>oscd note to the Arbitrators 
 while his tiovernnient is contemplating 
 any change in tiie article. With r(>gard to 
 the i)ossib!(( failure of the Treaty Mr. Fish 
 remarks that this coiuitry will staiul 
 before the world having done all that it 
 conhl to nniintain it and the eivili/.ing 
 principle whitdi it established. 
 
 The I'resiih'iit is extremely anxious to pre- 
 serve tile Treaty, and niil(!S8 tiie innv arti- 
 cle be signed and aiijirovcd by the Sen- 
 ate so tiiat the l'resid(;iit's ratiiication 
 may go by the steamer of Saturday, (1st 
 proximo,) it cannot reach London in time 
 to be exchanged and presented to the Ar- 
 bitrators on ir)th .June. 
 
 Earl (?ranville remarks that certain por- 
 tions of Mr. Fisli's statement, iis contained 
 in his telegram of the day previous, to 
 General Schenek, were inexpjicabh' to him. 
 General Schenek stated tliat the article as 
 proposed by Great liritain coiiliiies itself 
 to liy[)otlietieal cases which may never oc- 
 cur, while the amendments of the Senate 
 ajiply the i>rinciple to general cases. 
 
 Incloses copies iif recent correspondence 
 with Earl (jranville already telegraphed. 
 
 Transmits the text of a note from Earl 
 Granville, of tin; 30tli, to the effect that 
 Her Majesty's (Jovernment have stated 
 their olijectioiiK to the words proiioscd by 
 the Senate, but do not pretend that the 
 words snggcsted l)y themselves were in- 
 capable of improvement. Earl Granvilh^ 
 sulmiits to (iciieral Schenek a draught- 
 article, the sulistauci! of wliich is that the 
 President will not make any claim on the 
 part of the United States before the Tri- 
 
 i 
 
 .» !>, I'm 
 No. 
 
 101 
 
 l(f.> 
 II li 
 
 >'.> Mr. 
 
 1 (T 
 
 no (ieli. 
 
 .^.1 Mr. 
 (T. 
 
 .^)2 Gen. 
 
 id:: 
 
 10.-, 
 
 106 
 
 .')3 
 
 Mr. F 
 
 
 Si 
 
 
 (Tc 
 
 54 
 
 Gen. f> 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 (Te 
 
 55 
 
 Mr. Fi 
 
 
 Sc 
 
 
 (Te 
 
 
 ■ 50 
 
 Gen. S 
 
 Mi 
 
 (Tc 
 
 100 
 
 
 
 
 .57 
 
 Mr. Fi 
 
 114 
 
 
 Sc 
 
TABLE OF C0NTP:NTS. 
 
 IX 
 
 No. 
 
 I'niiii w lioiii and 
 to wlioiii. 
 
 him to Kill! 
 
 IIH. Kc.'ISOllH 
 
 Oil i'ctiiiiiiii<; 
 
 'rriliiiiml. 
 n'liiiuiiit t.'oii- 
 
 ol" princiiilo 
 ; iircparcd to 
 1', iiiiil iirct'rr 
 rlitcd it ; hilt 
 rticli' as tlif 
 ih.'ttitution of 
 
 II to tho i»ro- 
 iieiitaiy arti- 
 
 IGrauvilh' to 
 
 1 (lovuniuioiit 
 eh- aHaineiitl- 
 ir Mtaiiilard of 
 hh) to si;;iiif,v 
 do of which 
 \w. 
 
 \lv. Thornton 
 1(1 of tilt' aiti- 
 latt! could hi! 
 nsch'ss to dis- 
 10 Arhitrator.s 
 ontemiilatiii^ 
 t'itli i(><;ardto 
 eaty Mr. Fish 
 will stand 
 no all tliat it 
 ho civilizing; 
 1. 
 
 xions to prii- 
 
 Itlio new arti- 
 
 hy tilt! Sfii- 
 
 latification 
 
 itiuday, (1st 
 
 iitlon ill tiiiit! 
 
 d to the Ar- 
 
 Icfrtain ]ior- 
 as ct)iitaint:d 
 pi't'vions, to 
 Icablf to him. 
 till! artiilc as 
 Inihncs itsflf 
 ay never oc- 
 |f the Senatt! 
 
 cases. 
 Iresitondcnce 
 doffraiilied. 
 from iMirl 
 elfect that 
 Jiave stated 
 |liro})ost'd hv 
 !iid that the 
 jes wert! in- 
 rl Granville 
 a drauji'lit- 
 |i is that the 
 I'laini on the 
 fore the Tri- 
 
 101 
 
 J'.i 
 
 lii-i 
 
 III-2 
 
 r>(» 
 
 in:' 
 
 10.^, 
 
 o3 
 u4 
 
 106 
 
 Wl 
 
 100 
 114 
 
 i8ra, 
 
 Mr. Fish to Oen. May 
 ."^fhi'iielc. 
 (Telfj^ram.) 
 
 (ieii. Scheiiek to Jiiiif 
 Mr. Fish. j 
 
 Mr. Fish to (ieii. Juno 
 .'^fheiK'k. 
 (Telej;''am.) I 
 
 Gen. Schenck to .June 
 .Mr. Fisli. 
 (■relegram.) 
 
 Mr. I'ish to tien. .Juno 
 St lifiiek. I 
 
 (Tcle<;rani.) ' 
 Gen. Si'lienek to .Iiiiio 
 .Mr. Fish. 
 (Teh-ram.) | 
 
 Mr. Fish to Gt;ii. ,)niic 
 Schenck. 
 (Tel"j;ram.) 
 
 (Jen. Schenck to .Tune 
 Mr. Fish. 
 (Ti'lt'irram.) 
 
 Mr. Fis.i If <';eu. ' .Tune 
 St.lienci< 
 
 huiial of Arhitratiim in respect of tho 
 H(!veral chi'.ses of indirect losses therein 
 ennmerateil. 
 'M Iidorinin;; him that the tiinn is too liiniti!d 
 for th(! .Senatt! to consiiler the important 
 chanties propost-il l)y tht! Hrltisji (iovern- 
 nieiit to tile terms of tlie siii))>lonientaI 
 nrtielo. Mr. Fisli has sii}if;t'sted to >Ir. 
 Thornton that they sijj;ii tlii! article as 
 reeominended hy the Senate, that tho Ar- 
 hitration may proceed. 
 
 1 ' Transmits copy of Karl Granville's note of 
 ;{Olh ultimo, already telei;riiphed. [See 
 I No. 4H.] 
 
 1 The adjournment of tho Trihunal withont 
 amendiiif;' the lifth article of the Treaty 
 would practically amount to udiscontinn- 
 ;.nee, and tliat article cai only he amend jd 
 hy ii new Trt!aty. 
 Transmits text of note from Earl Granville 
 in rejily to telegram from Mr. Fisli to Gen- 
 eral Schenck, of 31st May, to the e:^eet 
 that Her Majesty's Govornnieiit hold that 
 hy tho article adopted hy the Senate cases 
 of had faith and willful miscondiie; art! 
 hronght within tho scojie of tht: proposed 
 agrecmen;,, which deals with pecuniary 
 compensation. Earl Granville is informed 
 hy Sir E. Thornton that Mr. Fish thinks the 
 article adopted hy the Seiiatocapahle of im- 
 provement. Ih'itish Government declines 
 to sign a Treaty not in CDnformity with 
 theirvi(!ws. Arewill.igtosign aTrea' yor 
 concur in joint application to Trihunal to 
 adjourn proceeding.s of Arbitration. 
 Relative to cases i.f hail faith or Avillfiil mi.s- 
 conilnet held hy tireat Uritain to ho within 
 tlie scope of the Senate article. 
 British Go\eriimeiit holds tliat after the Ar- 
 h'.irators have rect!ived the arguments 
 from the Agents on tho luth, they may 
 adjonrn for a time. 
 United States Government concurs in opin- 
 ion that tilt! Arbitrators have powt-r to 
 adjonrn. If argnmeiits on both sides he 
 jint in on loth and Great Britain move 
 for adjoiiriiiiient, this Government will 
 concur. 
 
 :{ Her Majesty's Governmeni of opinion that 
 j Arbitrators must meet on Ifith, but not 
 necessary for Agents to present arguments 
 at that time. 
 
 Ii I Reply to Earl Granville's instruction to Sir 
 E. Thornt'tn, of the llStli nltinio. Re- 
 fers to Earl Russell's dispatt^h of ilareh 
 27, If^GU, to Lord Lyons, as proof that Mr. 
 Adams, in a conversation with Earl Rus- 
 sell then in alluded to, referred to the 
 "Alabama" and other erniser.s as among 
 the causes teniling to produce the exasper- 
 ation which miglii. lead to a war " witii 
 the view to aid the eonfederate cause;"' 
 and not to "blockade running.'' Shows 
 that the British Government must have 
 
 lU 
 
 ll.'> 
 ll'j 
 
 117 
 
 117 
 118 
 
 lid 
 
 IIH 
 119 
 

 n, 
 
 Ifr' 
 
 ¥ 
 
 llil 
 
 r ■ 
 
 r.- ■ 
 
 w 
 
 X 
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 No. 
 
 58 
 
 5'J 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 From whom and 
 to wlioiii. 
 
 Mr. Fish to Gen. 
 
 Schenck. 
 
 (Telegiaiii.) 
 
 1872. 
 
 June 
 
 Gon. Schenck to 
 
 Mr. Fish. 
 
 (Telegram.) 
 
 Mr. Fisli to Gen. 
 
 Schenck. 
 
 (Telcf^ram.) 
 
 02 
 
 g:5 
 
 Gen. Schenck to 
 
 Mr. Fish. 
 
 (Telegram.) 
 
 . . . tlo 
 
 Mr 
 
 Fish to Gen. 
 Sclienek. 
 (Telegnim.) 
 
 Juno 
 
 Juuo 
 
 June 
 
 June 
 
 Juno 
 
 unrlerstood that the United States in- 
 sisted upon indemnity for indirect injuries 
 anterior to tlio meeting of the Joint High 
 Commission> and that their ])resentation 
 was not a surprise to the Britisli High 
 Commissioners ; also, that the British 
 Government entered upon the negotiation 
 of the Alabama r^nestion with a kuowl- ] 
 edge of the existence of the claims for 
 indirect losses. Alludes to recent speech 
 of Sir Stafford Northcote, and denies that 
 promise was given by the American High I 
 Commissioners that the indirect claims | 
 were not to be put forward. 
 
 The Government of the United States dif- 128 
 fers from opinion of Earl Granville with | 
 regard to presentation of arguments on ] 
 the 15th. If an ad.journnieut is contem- j 
 plated by Great Britain it sliould be nn- ! 
 derstood that this Government cannot i 
 negotiate on a proposition which involves : 
 the idea that it is guilty of willful viola- ! 
 tion of its international duties. j 
 
 Opposition members in Parliament h.ivo I 12(3 
 fears that the last clause (tf the article is 
 not exi)licit enough to prevent indirect i 
 claims from being again brcuight forward. | 
 
 This Government deals with the British 12<t 
 Government, not with opposition members : 
 of Parlianu'iit. If the British Govern- 
 ment adopts the unworthy suspicion, or 
 suggests that this Government will not in 
 go(»d faith act upon tiie agreement con- 
 tained therein, all further negotiation j 
 must cease at once. Any change in the 
 article as agreed to by tlie Senate would 
 involve discussion, and lead to the defeat 
 of the Treaty. 
 
 The British Government do not adopt the loij 
 fears and suspicions of others witli regard 
 to the last clause of the proposed article, 
 but defend it as sullicieut. Transmits 
 text of three notes from Karl (iiauville, 
 first of whicli relates to alterations in tlie 
 draught-article proposed by tlu) Senate ; 
 the second with regard to the necessity of 
 presenting tlu? written or printed argu- 
 ments on the loth of .Fune; and the third 
 to an a]iplication to be niadi; to the 
 Arliitrators to adjourn on the l.')th, with- 
 out the presentation of tlie argunuiut of 
 eitluir Government, or to conclude a new 
 arraugenuMit witli tUv United States for 
 the enhugenmnt of tlie time. 
 
 Intbrmed Earl (Jranvillt! that it was useless i;!l 
 to exi)ect tiiat any change can be made in 
 the artidt! as agreed to by tlie Striate. In- 
 closes copy of liis note to Earl Granville 
 on the suliject. 
 
 The criticism by tlie British Government on i;W 
 the language of tin? Senate anieiiduitMit is 
 regarded as hypercritical and strained. 
 The Senate and people of tlie I'niteil 
 States imiiatient over the delays. This 
 
 G7 Geu. 
 M 
 Mr. F 
 eral 
 
 (Te 
 
 08 
 
 Gl> 
 
 Mr. F 
 
 ] 
 (Tc 
 
 711 Gener 
 to] 
 
 (Te 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 SI 
 
 to 
 
 No. 
 
 From whom and 
 to whom. 
 
 1-28 
 
 ed States in- 
 idircct injuries 
 lie Joint High 
 r ]»resentation 
 British High 
 t the British 
 ho negotiation 
 with a kuowl- 
 the claims for 
 ) recent speech 
 nd denies that 
 \merican High 
 ndirect claims 
 
 ted States dif- 
 Granville with 
 arguments on I 
 lent is contem- 
 
 should be nn- ! 
 iiment cannot I 
 which involves i 
 f willful viola- I 
 ities. i 
 
 rlianient have | 128 
 f the article is 
 revent indirect i 
 (lUght forward. I 
 th the British 12'J 
 sition members ; 
 hitish Govern- , 
 ly suspicion, or 
 lent will not in 
 [igreemeut con- 
 |er negotiation 
 
 change in the 
 ,e Senate wtmld 
 id to the defeat 
 
 not adopt the 
 rw with regard 
 
 iDpiised article, 
 t. Transmits 
 
 •;arl (irauville, 
 crations in the 
 
 ly the Senate ; 
 he necessity of 
 printed argu- 
 aud the third 
 made to the 
 he ir)th, with- 
 
 [(! arguiiusnt of 
 Duelude a new 
 ted States for 
 
 it was useless 
 
 an be made in 
 
 Le Senate. lu- 
 
 lEarl Granville 
 
 lidvernment on 
 lam'-'udmcMit is 
 
 and strained. 
 if the rnited 
 
 delays. This 
 
 1872. 
 
 G4 I Gen. Schenck to i June 
 Mr. Fish. 
 I (Telegram.) ! 
 
 (35 
 
 06 
 
 Mr. Fish to Gen. 
 
 Schenck. 
 
 (Telegram.) 
 
 June 8 
 
 Gen. Schenck to ; June 
 Mr. Fish. ! 
 (Telegram.) 
 
 12'.) 
 
 07 j Gen. Schenck to 
 j Mr. Fish. 
 
 08 : Mr. Fish to Gen- 
 eral Schenck. 
 
 (Telegram.) 
 
 Gil 
 
 i:u 
 
 i:w 
 
 June 
 June 
 
 Mr. Fish to Mr. 
 
 Davis. 
 
 (Telegram.) 
 
 ' General Schenck 
 to Mr. Fish. 
 (Telegram.) 
 
 June 9 
 
 Juno 11 
 
 .do 
 
 ' June 11 
 
 Government cannot adopt the argument 
 of Earl Granville with regard to the put- 
 ting in of arguments by both Govern- 
 ments on the 15th. United States think 
 the Treaty requires it to be done. 
 Transmits 8ub.stance of note of even date 
 from Earl Granville respecting the sub- 
 stitution of certain words in the Senate 
 article with regard to indirect losses. 
 Reference to any conveisation with Sir E. 
 Thornton unjustified. Have invariably 
 told him that it was useless to discuss the 
 amendments to the jjroposed article. 
 Transmits substance of note from Earl 
 Granville of even date, with sketch of 
 draught-note in presenting sunnnai-y. 
 Earl (iranville says that if the Treaty 
 is to bo maintained an adjournment 
 from the 15th instant has become abso- 
 lutely necessary. He proposes that joint 
 api)lication bo made to the Tribunal for 
 an adjournment of eight months. If the 
 United States concur in nuiking the appli- 
 cation the agent of Her Majesty's Govern- 
 ment will deliver to the Arbitrators tin* 
 summary of their argiunent, accomjianied 
 by a declaration that it is the intention of 
 his Government to cancel tln! appointment 
 of the British Arbitrator, and to withdraw 
 from the Arbitration at the close of the 
 term fixed for the a<ljourniuent, unless the 
 diii'erence existing between the two Gov- 
 ernments in regard to indirect losses shall 
 have been removed. 
 Transmits coi)ie8 of correspondence with 
 
 Earl Granville, (already telegraphed.) 
 Earl Granville's projiosal for joint ajtplica- 
 tion to Tril)unal for an adjoriiment for 
 eight months cannot be accejited by this 
 Governnient. This Government cannot 
 be a party, directly or iiidire(!tly, to an 
 agreement whereby (jreat Britain is to 
 submit lier argument to the Triliiiual con- 
 ditionally. Inform Mr. Davis of jucsent 
 condition of negotiation between the two 
 Governments. 
 Instructs Agent and Counsel to be in (ieueva 
 on 15th. ]f necessary, notify Arl)itra- 
 tors that you will be tlu>re to di'liver ar- 
 gument and proceed according to Treaty. 
 Should such notice as Granville's note in- 
 dicates be given, a decich'd ])rotest must 
 be entered against any (lualitied or condi- 
 tional apjiearance before tin* Tril)unal. 
 Transmit text of note from Earl Granville 
 to etfect that Her Majesty's (iovernment 
 will ask for an adjourmnent of tlic Tribu- 
 nal tor such a period as will enable tliiMii 
 to make a supi>lenientary convention with 
 the United States. 
 Informing Mr. Fish tiiat Ik; has acknowl- 
 edged Earl Granville's note, the one above 
 referred to. 
 
 133 
 
 133 
 
 134 
 
 135 
 140 
 
 141 
 
 141 
 
 142 
 
I ml 
 
 ■ I' 
 
 m 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 ^f 
 
 il 
 
 
 XII 
 
 rABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 No. 
 
 From wliom luul 
 to whom. 
 
 Gen. Sclunu'k to 
 
 Mr. Fish. 
 
 (Telegram,) 
 
 73 ' Gon. Schciick to 
 ilr. Fish. 
 
 Date. 
 
 June 13 
 
 74 Mr. Fish to Gcii. 
 Schcnek. 
 
 (Teh'graiii.) 
 
 75 Mr. Davis to Mr. 
 I Fish. 
 
 (Tt'li'jiiam.) 
 
 76 ' Mr. Fish to Mr. 
 Davis. 
 
 (Telefrnini.) 
 
 Mr. Davis to Mr. 
 
 Fish. 
 
 (Teleyrani.) 
 
 Jnno 13 
 
 June 15 
 
 Juno 18 
 
 Juue 19 
 
 78 ih) 
 
 June 1!) 
 
 70 Mr. Fish to (Jni. 
 Ncin'nt'i\. 
 (Teh'gram.) 
 
 .IllIH' -J'J 
 
 Subject. 
 
 1872. ! 
 Juno 12 
 
 be 
 
 Transmits termination of a noto from Earl ' 143 
 Granville of 11th instant. IJiitisli Gov- \ 
 erimient heliev** that th.'y have iiK^t all 
 the objections which have l)een ad vanccd hy 
 United Stftes. If the United States be- 
 lieve that certain cases are not covered 
 by the last proposed form of article, and 
 will state what the cases are, there is no 
 doubt but that the two Governments can 
 agree upon a form of words which will not 
 be open to the same oVyection as that of 
 the Senate amendment. i 
 
 Transmits copy of correspondence with For- 143 
 eign Office, also reports of proeeedinjfs in j 
 both Houses of PurliamtMit, and articles i 
 from leading .j<nu'nals showing anxiety 
 and excitement then; occasioned by immi- 
 nent prospect of the failure of the Arbitra- 
 tion at Geneva. Indosure 6 referred to in 
 No. 72 is a recapitulation of the negotia- 
 tions Avhich have passed with respect to 
 the sujtplementary Treaty article. 
 
 Telegraph Mr. Davis that if arguments are 
 filed in good faitii witliout offensive notice, 
 we will assent to their motion for adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 Our argument presented. British Agent in- 
 struc' •xl to withhold British argument. 
 Triltunal adjourns till Monday. 
 
 If thtue is to be an adjojuument let it be not, 
 beyond 1st of January. The President 
 sees no objection to such adjournnuint if 
 asked for i)y the <lefendants. 
 
 Th(! Triiuinal will, this morning, make de- 
 claration to the etiect that tliey do not 
 ])ro]iose to express or imply iiii.x' opinion 
 upon the points of ditVerenci^ between tlie 
 two Governnu'Uts, but it seems to them 
 obvious tliat tiie ju-oposed adjournment, 
 instead of settling tii<' cpiestions in dis- 
 pute, will have a tend(,'ney to make the 
 Arbitration aliortive; tliey thcri'foremake 
 the declaration tiiat after a careful i)eru- 
 sal of all tiiat luis beeTi urged by tlie 
 United States in favor of indirect claims, 1 
 they Jiave arrived at th(^ eomlusion tiiat 
 tliese claims do i!ot constitute, upon tlie \ 
 l>rincipleH of inteniaiioiial law applicable j 
 to such cases, good t'oiindatioii for an I 
 award of coin])ensatioii, and sliould, upon ; 
 such princliile, be wliolly excluded from I 
 the eonsiderati(Ui of tiie. 'rriliuniil. | 
 
 ■L'ounsel are of opinion tliat announce ' l.'rj 
 )nent this day made by the Triltunal must 
 be received by tlli^ Uiiite<l Slates as de- ' 
 terminative of its jiidgnieiil n|ioii the (pies- 
 tion of piililie law involved. Tliey a(lvis(f 
 that elainis covered iiy this declaration be 
 witlidiawn from fiirtlier consideration by 
 the Tribunal. 
 
 Telegraiili Mr, Davis that the I'lcsident ae- "* l,''i 
 eepts tlii'deelarati(Mi ol' tile Tribunal as its 
 jiiilgn 'lit upon a (|uestioii of imblie law 
 which he felt that the interest of botliGov- 
 
 ir,(» 
 
 l,-.l 
 l,')l 
 
 mi 
 
 No. 
 
 Fron 
 
 SO 
 81 
 
 Mr. 1 
 
 (Tt 
 Gen. 
 M 
 
 (Tc 
 
 82 
 
 ^83 
 
 Mr. Di 
 
 (To: 
 
 J. 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 XIII 
 
 \ SO 
 
 I (2 
 
 lotn from Earl 143 
 Uritisli Gov- I 
 liavo lucit all 
 
 !oii advanced by 
 
 ited States be- 
 
 •e not covered 
 
 of article, and 
 
 are, there is no 
 
 veriunents can 
 
 which will not 
 
 tiou as that of 
 
 lence with For- i 1-13 
 proceedings in I 
 t, and articles | 
 >\vin^ anxiety 
 ioned by inimi- 
 of the Arbitra- 
 (5 referred to in 
 )f the ne^otia- 
 vitli lespect to 
 article, 
 arfiunients are ' !")(• 
 )rt'ensive notice, | 
 iou for adjourn- l 
 
 ritish Ajjont in- l")! 
 tish ary;uuient. } 
 iday. 1 
 
 Mit let it be not 151 
 The President | 
 idjonrnnient if I 
 
 151 
 
 inji, make d<^- 
 tiiey do not i 
 liny opinion i 
 betwt^en the I 
 
 i-enis to tlieni j 
 adjonriinient, | 
 
 'stions in (lis- I 
 to make the j 
 
 therefore make ] 
 carefnl ])ern- i 
 
 nry;ed l)y the ! 
 
 idivcct claims, ! 
 
 oiH'liision that ' 
 
 tiite, npon the ; 
 
 aw Miiidleablc ! 
 
 lilt ion for an j 
 sliould, upon ; 
 
 ■xc'.nded from | 
 
 bnnal. 
 
 at iinnonnco 15'^ 
 
 'I'ribnnal ninst ■ 
 Slates as de- 
 
 n)ioii the (pies- 
 Tliey atlvise 
 
 deelaiation be 
 
 Msideration by 
 
 I'residenI ac- 1 \'<-i 
 rrilinnal as its 
 of iiulilic law 
 st of both Uov- 
 
 ;No. 
 
 From whoiri and 
 to whom. 
 
 Date. 
 
 Subject. 
 
 80 
 
 81 
 
 82 
 
 83 
 
 Mr. Davis to Mr. 
 
 Fish. 
 
 (Telegram.) 
 
 Gen. Sc.lKMick to 
 
 Mr. Fish. 
 
 (Telegram.) 
 
 .do 
 
 Mr. Davis to Mr. 
 
 Fish. 
 (Telegram.) 
 
 1872. 
 
 Juuo 25 
 
 Juiit, 2G 
 
 Juuo 27 
 
 June 27 
 
 ernment.s required should be decided. 
 United States had no desire for a pecuni- 
 ary aw^ard, but desired an expression by 
 the Tribunal as to the liability of a neu- 
 tral for claims of that character. The 
 President consequently withdraws from 
 the consideration of the Tribunal the three 
 classes of indirect claims before referred to. 
 
 Coiuisel concur in form of communication 
 to the Tribuiuil of the actiou of our Gov- 
 erument. 
 
 Mr. Davis telegraplis General Schenck that 
 he juformed the Arbitrators that tiieir de- 
 claration with I'egard to the three classes 
 of indirect claims is accepted by the Pres- 
 ident. Tribunal then adjourned till the 
 11th to enable the British Ageut to coui- 
 rauuicato with his Government. 
 
 Mr. Davis telegraphs General Schenck that 
 in view of the fact that the United States 
 withdraws her claim for indirect losses, 
 the British Agent will request leave to 
 withdraw the application of his Govern- 
 ment for an adjournment. 
 
 British argument filed. Arbitration goes 
 ou. 
 
 
 153 
 154 
 
 154 
 

 }■■. 
 
 :i 
 
 1$ 
 
 mwu 
 
 London 
 jfor i 11(1 in 
 j.alarMied. 
 
 Jortx^nsive 
 aopeniting, 
 
 I- 
 
 m 
 
 I There ni 
 ^Dounsel \vi 
 |ernnienc r. 
 I The alar 
 :^n<l conten 
 #he treats- 
 
 ^il^':: 
 
 ill 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 •' 
 
 i 
 
 ^ Ilesei'vin 
 |lsi»Ht('h, I 
 terpretatio 
 
 1 "Sru: !!( 
 |Hie Case pr 
 
1('0R[IESP()XI)EXCE RESPECTING THE GEXEVA AR- 
 
 BIT RATI OX. 
 
 :>fo. 1. 
 
 (Jeneval Schenck to Mr. Fish. 
 
 [Tcli'ni'iuii.] 
 
 London, Fchrunii/ 2, 1S72. 
 
 I London Jounials all doiiiiinil tliat L^uited States shall withdraw claims 
 Ifoi' indirect dania^ifes, as not within intention of treaty, ^linistry 
 lalarnied. Am exertinj>' myself with hope to prevelit anything rash or 
 lotfensive bein.^' done or said by this Government, l-^varts here co- 
 loperatiny. 
 
 No. 2. 
 ]\fr. Fish to General Schench: 
 
 [Tclcgi'iiin.] 
 I)El'AR'r>rENT OF ST/VTE, 
 
 Washinffton, Fcbnuiry o, 1872. 
 
 There must be no withdrawal of any part of the claim i)resented. 
 Counsel will ar,t;iie the c se as prepared, nidess they show to this (lov- 
 ernmenc reasons for a clian,i>e. 
 
 Tiie alarm you speak of does not reach ns. We are perfectly calm 
 an<l content to await tiie award, and do not anticiipate rejmdiati )n ot 
 tlie treat V bv the other side. 
 
 ^■o. ;?. 
 
 General Sehenek io Mr. Fish. 
 
 [TL'l.';,Maiii.] 
 
 London. Fehrunnj o, 1S72. (Sent at 8.;5() p. m.) 
 
 Ileservinj;' comment and farther inlbrmation until 1 can send written 
 lispat(th, I comnuuiicate (Iranville's note givin;.;' notice of IJritish in- 
 terpretation of Treaty, as follows : 
 
 Earl Gnuirille fo Gcncrnl Sehenel,'. 
 
 "roREi(i\ Offici;, Fehruarji ;], 1S72. 
 "SiK: llcr^Iajesly's Ciovernment liave had undertlieir consideration 
 klieCase ju'csented on behalf of the (ioveriimeiit of the TnitiMl Stales to 
 
■> r .; ■■-! 
 
 $i 
 
 9> 
 
 .,•.1(1 
 
 
 m 
 
 ; I": 
 
 ■ i . ! 
 
 '&\ 
 
 2 COURESI'ONDKNCH KESPECTIXU GENEVA Al.MJITKATION. 
 
 tlio Ti'ibniiJil of Arhiliiition at (Jciicva, of wliicli a copy liad been pic- 
 siMitcdto Her Majcsly's aj^ciit. 
 
 "I will not alliidc, ill this letter, to scxcia! portions of the I, 'iiitt'd States 
 ('ase, whieh ai'e of (MHiiparatively smaller importaiK-e, but Her Majesty's 
 (Joveriimeiit are of oiniiion that it will bt^ in aeeoidanee with their de- 
 sire that no ol»stac,le should be inteiposed to the prosi'cntion of the ar- 
 bitration, and that it will be more frank and friendly toward the (iov- 
 einment of the United Stales to state at once their views respecting; 
 ceitain claims of an enormous and inih'titiite amount whi<!li appear to 
 have been put forward as matters to be I'cferred to arbitration. 
 
 " Her Majesty's (lovernment hold that it is not within the province of 
 the Tribunal of Arljitration at (ieneva to decide u|)on the claims for indi- 
 rect losses and injuries put forward in the; Case of the United States, iii- 
 cludin.n" the loss in the transfer of th(» American commercial marine to 
 the Di'itish lla<j:, thc! enhanced payment of insurance, an<l the i)rolon<fa- 
 tion of the war, and the addition of ji large sum to the cost of the war 
 ami suppression of the rebellion, 
 
 "I have stated above tlieimj)ortance which Her Majesty's (lOvernment 
 attach to the prosecution of this arbitration. 
 
 "The i>rimary object of the (Tovernments was the tirm establislinu'ut »)f 
 amicable relations between two countries which have so many and such 
 peculiar reasons to be <m friendly terms; and the satisfaction with 
 which the announ(!euient of tiie Treaty was received by b^th nations 
 showed the strenj;th of that feelin}>\ 
 
 " JJut there is another object to which Her .Majesty's Govennnent be- 
 lieve the Government of the United States attach the same value as 
 they do themselves, namely, to give an exam[>le to the world how two 
 j»Teat nations can settle matters in dispute by referrinj^' theui to an ini- 
 j)artial tribunal. 
 
 " Her Majest^N 's GoverunuMit, on their part, feel confident that the Gov- 
 ernment of the United States are also eciually anxious with themselves 
 that the amicable settlement which was stated in the Treaty of Wash- 
 ington to have been the object of that instrument may be attained, and 
 that an exani[)le so full of good i)romise for the future amy not be lost 
 to the civilized world." 
 
 No. 1. 
 
 (loit'nil tSchciirlx to Eorl (h'atirillc. 
 
 ]a)c,.\t\os ov tiik Umtei) States, 
 
 London, Fchnmri/ 5, 1872. 
 
 M\ L()l!i): 1 have the lu)nor to aclcnowled^ie the receipt, on this eve 
 ninj; <if the .id instant, of your m)t(^ of that date, in which, after statin.u 
 that H(M' ?.lajesty's(Joveinment have had under their consideration tlu' 
 ( "ase |)resented on behalf of the United SI ates to the Ti ibunal of Arbitra 
 tion at (Jeneva, you jirocecMl to say tiiat you will not allude to several 
 jiortions el' that Case, which are of coiiii)arative!y smaller imi>ortaiu!0, 
 I)iit that Her Majest^s GoveiiniKMit are of opinion that it will be in 
 accmdance witli their desire that no oi)stacle should be interposed to 
 the itrosecution of the arbitration, and that it will \)v, more frank and 
 friendly toward the ( loxci iinient <!f the United States to state at oncf 
 their \ie\\s respect inu:' cerlain «'iainis which you describe as of an 
 eiu)rnioiis and indelinit'" amount, which appear to have l)een jtiii 
 lorwar<l as matters to Ite referred to ar'oitration. 
 
 Vou i 
 
 is not w 
 
 deci<le i 
 
 in th(» c 
 
 the Am 
 
 ))aymen 
 
 addition 
 
 vebi'llioi 
 
 ■i Kelcil 
 
 |atla('li t 
 
 ft he objt 
 
 larbitrati 
 
 r|of amica 
 
 *such ))('( 
 
 isatisfact 
 
 l»v both 
 
 I 'ibityi 
 
 ment be 
 
 value as 
 
 how two 
 
 :, to an im 
 
 Ami y 
 
 ernnient 
 
 States ai 
 
 tlemenf, 
 
 *the objec 
 
 'so full 'of 
 
 W<U'1(I. 
 
 The pii 
 
 of the oji 
 
 M)f the Tr 
 
 ,rect lossi 
 
 'shall has 
 
 ^einment. 
 
 In tliei 
 
 ment of I 
 
 of the de 
 
 interpose 
 
 frieiully t 
 
 ^The objei 
 
 Mi I self in tl 
 
 Heal with t 
 
 of a mica', 
 
 wtuld ;ui 
 
 <lispute I 
 
 sniv V(»ui 
 
 carnesMy 
 
 i was pro', i 
 
 jas Voiir I, 
 
 f.'promisr l( 
 
 • 1 have I 
 
 !U)nlshi!.V 
 
 .V 
 
ITKATION. 
 
 C01lRi:SP0NDEXCE KKSPECTING OKNKVA AJilSI'IHATIOX. 
 
 ]>y li;i(l been [no- 
 
 tlie l,'nit«'(l States 
 )ut Her AFajesty's 
 net' witli tlu'ir do- 
 'ciitioii of the iu- 
 towavd the (lov- 
 ' views respeetin;; 
 t which appear to 
 l)iti'atioii. 
 ill tlie piovinee ol 
 ho claims for iiidi- 
 Tiiited States, in- 
 uercial marine to 
 aii<l the proh)iiga- 
 le cost of the war 
 
 'sty'sdoveninieiit 
 
 11 establishment of 
 
 so many and such 
 
 satisfaction with 
 
 I by bf^tli nations 
 
 4 Clovernment be 
 he same vahie as 
 he world bow two 
 !<>• them to ail im- 
 
 lent that the Gov- 
 with themselves 
 Treaty of Wash- 
 be attained, and 
 
 ■e may not be lost 
 
 i:!) Htatks, 
 
 'rhnutry "», IS72. 
 
 cciiit, on liu! eve 
 
 liich, after statin.u 
 consideration the 
 
 ihiinalof Arbitrii 
 allude to several 
 
 laller importance, 
 
 that it will be in 
 
 be interposed t(i 
 
 i> more frank and 
 
 s to state at onci' 
 
 scribe as of an 
 
 have been laii 
 
 Vuu then <;•() on to smte that Her Majesty's (iovern.Ment hold that it 
 is not within the ]>roviiice of tlu^ Tribunal of Arbitration at (leneva to 
 decide upon the t;laiins for indirect losses and injuries put forward 
 in the case <»;' the United States, iiiclndiiia" the loss in the transfer of 
 the .\nieri('an «'(imin(M'cial niaiiiie to the IJiitish fla^'. the eidianced 
 ])aymeiit of insurance, and the i)r(»h»!i,uation of tlu^ war, and the 
 
 ; addition of a larp' sum to tiie cost of the war and sujiiu'ession of the 
 vebelhoii. 
 
 iJelerriiiii', then, to the importance which Her Majesty's (loveinment 
 
 ;;jali.icli to the ])r(»se('ution of the arbitration, you j)roceed to speak of 
 
 'the objects wliicli Her Majesty's ( Ji)vernmeiit had in view in that 
 ai'bitration. The primary object, you say, was the tirm estalilishnient 
 o!' amicalile rehitions between two countries which have so many and 
 such ])e('uliar reasons to be on friendly terms; and you add that the 
 siifisfaction with which the aiinouncenuMit of tlu^ Treaty was received 
 Ity both nations show»Ml the stien,utli of that feeliiij;. 
 
 I bit you say there is another object to which iler ^lajesty's (Jovern- 
 ment believe the (loviM'ument of tin; United Stat( s attach the same 
 value as they do themselves, namely, to f>ive an example to the world 
 how two f?reat iiatiiuis can setth; matters in dispute by referrin<? them 
 to an impartial tribunal. 
 
 And you close your note with the statement that Her Majesty's Gov- 
 ernment on their part feel (;onfident that the (Jovernment of the United 
 States ai'? also eijnally anxious with themsehes that the amicable set- 
 tlement, which was stated in th(> Treaty of Washinjiton to have been 
 the object of that instrument, may be attained, ami that an example 
 so full of j;ood promis(> lor the future may not be lost to the civilized 
 world. 
 
 The purpose of Your L(udship"s writiufi' api>earin,i;' to be to notify me 
 of the opinion which H<'r Majesty's Government hold as to the power 
 
 'of the Tribunal of Arbitration to <lecide upon certain claims for iiidi- 
 .rect losses and injuries put forward in the Case of the United States, 1 
 
 'shall hasten to c(»mmunicate your note with this information to my (Jov- 
 
 ■^ernnient. 
 
 In the mean time, I venture to assure Your IiOrdshi[) that the (iov«>rn- 
 meiit of the Uniteil States will be j;iatilied by this renewed assurance 
 of the desire of Jler Majesty's Gcvernment that no oiistaele should be 
 interposed to the prosecution of the arbitration, and by the frank and 
 fri«'ndly terms in which this statement of their views is made to me. 
 The objects which the (iovcu-nment of the United States jnoposed to 
 itselt' in the Treaty, and the arbitration for which it provides being iilenti 
 <!il will) tiiose stated by Your Lordship — that is, the firm establishment 
 of amieabl(M'elations between the two countries and the giving to the 
 world ;in example showinji' how two Jiieat natiiuis can settle matters \u 
 
 dispute by referrin.i'' them to an inii»artial tribunal — 1 can further UH 
 sur(^ Youi- li(U(lsIiip that my Governmi'ut does reeipri)eate most fully and 
 i-ariu'sily the anxiety that he spei'dy settlement by arbitration, which 
 
 i was p)-o\iiled for by the Treaty of NYashinuton, may be a(taine<l, so that, 
 
 ,as Your liiuilship has eloipu'Ully e\presse(l it, an examjtle so full o)\L;o(»t( 
 
 ?,ipromise i'or the fiUuri; may not be li>st to the civilized world. 
 
 s> 1 have the honor to be, with the hi,nhestco!isideratiiHi, My Lord. Yoiti- 
 
 ' L)i'(ls!ii)»'s most obedient, humble sei'\ant. 
 
 KOr.T. ( . SCIllOXCK. 
 
COllRHSPONDKNCl': HHSl'liCTiyrt GKN'EV.V AUIUTU.V TION. 
 
 No. 
 
 (Iciicnd Scltrnrk lo Mr. F/.s7/. 
 
 |H 
 
 .1 
 
 •I; ill 
 
 ■a I 
 
 
 
 
 tlxii; 
 
 v:'i; 
 
 Si 
 
 
 No. 1 iS.j LiKiATio.N oi' 'iiii; United Siatks, 
 
 Ldiidot). Fchniiirij U\1S72. (IJcccivcd Ft'biuiiry L'."..) jj^^.^ 
 
 >^ I j > . * * * * * # * 
 
 One of llicsc dchiitcs, tlu'.v siiy, wiis, in ])ait !it least, in tlif licaiinj;' of ^^ 
 (lie I'nitt'd Stales Ministei', who was in<'sent in liie House of J.ords, and 
 was doiii>tIess coniiMiiiiieated (o liis (ioveininent ; and all the debates on 
 that occasion must have l)een <;aiiie(l to the knowledjie of the (Jovevn- 
 nienl of the United kStates by the i)iinted and i>nblished reports, and 
 yet no jjn: rst or other coinniunieation objectini;' to such interpri'tation 
 was made by the Unite<l States to this (loverninent. It is held, therefore, 
 that till re was on one, part an implied acquiescence in that nu-aidnj;' 
 <;iven to the instrument. Now, i liad supi)osed that tin; Treaty havin;; 
 been concluded and i)ublished, and its provisions and lanyiiaj^e carryin.;;' 
 with them their own nu'aniiifi-, to be interpreted with or without resort 
 to tluv lijiht supplied by the protocol aiul the history of the, lu'.u'otiation, 
 wo were hardly o1)li,ti'ed to '^o I'urther and watch for what mif^ht be said 
 on the subject, 7>ro or con, in a le;4islative body en.^aj^ed in dis(;ussion on 
 it. ln<lee(l, it apix'ars to nu^ that renuuistrances or criticisms directed 
 from our (Jovernment at the speeches made in J'arliament mi^ht possibly 
 have been regarded as an impertinence. In this instance we were cer- 
 tainly not called ui)ou to take either the side of Ijord Cairns or of J^ord 
 (Iranville in the ditterence between them. 
 
 It seems to be admitted even here that such notice of what was said 
 would have been uncalled for, except for the circumstance that the Lords 
 and Members of UarliaiiuMit who arj^ued for the sauu' liritish interpre- 
 tation now put Ibrward were tlu^ [>rincipal Secretary of State t\)r Foreiyu 
 Affairs and two of the ne.notiators of the Treaty. 
 
 It would keep the diplomatic: agents of tlu^ Uiuted States in Loudon 
 and of Cireat Britain in \Vashin;^tou rather busily occu[)ied durinjj;' the 
 sessions of Conyross and of UarlianuMit if they were rcipiired to note 
 and rei)ort, for comment or answer by their respective (Jovernments, 
 whatever UMj^ht bo said in those assemblies, at the risk otherwise of 
 beiuj; bound and concluded by all the declarations made by lej;islators. 
 
 In point (»f fact, so far as I am personally concerne<l, althoui;'h of the 
 least possible cousoiiuence, I can state that 1 was only lu'oseut at, and 
 heard, the speech of Lord Ivussell in tho House of Lords, and the first 
 speech ol Lord Granville iu roi»ly. Our interest on both sides, as you 
 will see from my disi)atches of that date, was at that tinu', concentrated 
 on tho ((uestion of interpretation and defense of the sociuul rule in the 
 sixth article. 
 
 15ut if from silen(!e is to be argued consent, nnirk how infinitely 
 st)'ouj;('r a case on this principle we had aj>ainst Clreat Ibitain, but whicli < 
 she never would admit tho force of, on another branch of the nef>()tiii- | 
 tion of tho Treaty of Washiiifjton. Near two years and a half alter the I 
 treaty of ISK), Mr. liancroft, then our .Alinistor here, sent to Lord Pabii- * 
 or (ton, then British Secretary of State for Uoreij^n Atlairs, a copy of the ' 
 Unite(l States surveys of the waters of IMijiot Sound and tiu)se dividiu,i: 
 \'aiu'()uvei''s Island iVom our territory, accom])anied by a note in whicli 
 he said, " Your iiOrdship will readily trace the wh(»le course of the chau 
 nei of llari>, lhrou<;h tlio nuddle of which our boundary-line passes."" 
 
 (Ii'auv 
 
 '' telf'urait 
 
 '■\ replv to 
 
 ;' sunj^cste 
 
 Miis note 
 
 i nu'iit as 
 
 i (.'ase the 
 
 .li'ermane 
 
 here, l»nt 
 
 with rea.> 
 
 Avithdi'aw 
 
 Avill uud( 
 
 their nun 
 
 direct cli 
 
 oonsider; 
 
 once to a 
 
 I mad* 
 
 asking' u.- 
 
 it could I 
 
 Kei)ort 
 copied. 
 
 No. llt.J 
 ■ Sik: I 
 
ii.vrioN. 
 
 COIlRr.SPOKDKNrK KKSl'F.rTTNG OKNr.VA AKIMTRATIOX. 
 
 5 
 
 11 tlic liciuiii.i;" of 
 ISC of liovds, iiiid 
 11 tlicdobatcsoii 
 L' of tli(^ (Jovi'iii- 
 lieil ropoits, iiiid 
 •li inUMpivtiition 
 slu'ld, tlioivforc'r 
 ill that iMCiHiinu 
 10 Treaty having' 
 myna,<>c caiTyiiij;' 
 u' without vesort 
 ' the iK'ii'otiation, 
 lat lui^lit be said 
 I in discussion on 
 liticisins directed 
 lit inif^ht possibly 
 iince we weie cev- 
 Jaiins or of Lord 
 
 of what was said 
 ce that the Lords 
 Ihitish iiiterpre- 
 State for Foreiyu 
 
 "States in London 
 iupied durin^u,- the 
 rcipiired to note 
 ve (loverninents, 
 risk otherwise of 
 ide by le,uislators. 
 altiioui-h of the 
 ])resent at, and 
 •ds, and the iirst 
 Dtli sides, as you 
 line concentrated 
 iccond rule in the 
 
 rk liow intinitely 
 iritain, but whieli 
 ;h of the ne<>()tiii- 
 id a half alter the 
 "lit to Lord I'abu- 
 airs, a copy of the 
 nd those dividin.u 
 y a note in which 
 ourse of the chau 
 dary-line passes." 
 
 liord Paliiierston wrote to ^fr. Bancroft in rejily, thankiiiy' him for tlie 
 surveys, but not taking the slin!ite-;t e\'<';'|>ri<»ii to the stateiiieiir as to 
 the position of the bound, iryliiie which they have since so liei'ccly con- 
 tested, and wiiicli we lia\t' had to submit to ail»itrali<»ii. 
 
 * -f- -X f * ■* 
 
 1 have the honor io be, very rcspectrtiliv, \onr o'ocdicnt servant, 
 
 ' KOLT. (". SCllKNCK. 
 Ilo:i. IlAMir/l'ON Fisir, 
 
 SrrirfiU'i/ of tSI'tlc, ]V<i\l!li((/l(iii, 
 
 AO. (I. 
 
 (laivriil l<i-hcnvk (o Mr, Fisit, 
 
 [Tclf.',!';!!)!.] 
 
 No. 7. 
 
 Mr. Flsit io (Jcncral iSnioich'. 
 
 ['1V1(-t;uii.] 
 
 ^VASIIl^'(i■^o^■. F(hni((ri/ '27, ISTD. 
 IJcjiortcd rejection untrue. ICiitiii^ uiiaiiiinity. .Vi.swcr now Ikmiij 
 (•(([tied. (Jninville's sn<j;-,u','siioii iiiadmissibli'. 
 
 Xo. 8. 
 ^fr. Fish it) (icucni! SciicacJy. 
 
 Xo. ILL] 
 
 J)El'Airi'Mi;.\T OF Htatk. 
 
 Wd-sliiiu/toii, Fthntari/ L'7, !S7l*. 
 
 iSill: 1 have laid the note from I'iarl (Jranville, addressed to you, 
 
 S 
 
r 
 
 (; 
 
 COllKI.HPDNDKNCi: IIKSPICCTINO GKNKVA AKMIITR.M'IOX. 
 
 1^ 
 
 m 
 
 
 I >' 
 
 . ;i'i'i 
 
 ■;:;.:! : 
 
 Ix'ininj;' date llir .Id (<!' l''('lniiiirv, iiistiint, liclorc the I'rcsiilciit, who 
 (liitM'ts inc to s;iy I lull lit' siiiccicly (Icsircs to pi'oiiiol*' tliiit liiiii wnd 
 ahidiii;; IViciidsliiit Ix'twccii the two iiiitioiis to wliicli tlir note so Iiji]»|»ilv 
 iclVrs. 
 
 It wiis iiihUm' tlic inspiration of siicii scnlinicnls tiiat lie acccptt'd tlif 
 invitati<in of Ilcr .Majesty's (iovernnient lor the estal)lishineiit ol' a rioini 
 llij^li ('((inniission t(> treat and disenss the mode of settling' certain 
 • jnestions ref»'ired to therein, and snj;',ut'sted on his own part tiiat the 
 proposed eonunission shonhl also hav(^ antliority to eonsich'r the removal 
 of the dillerenees which arose (hiring the reltellion in the United States, 
 ji'rowinjif out of tln^ acts committed by the vessels, wliieh have !;iven 
 rise to the (tlaims <ii>n(^rieally kmtwn as tJM^ "Alahama. (tlaims.'" 
 
 It was liis earnest hopi; that {\\^' deliberations of the commission would 
 result in an ae(H>ptane,e by Her -Majesty's (Jovernment of the projtositioii. 
 submitted by his direction, that ii f;ross sum be afjreed upon and paid 
 to the United vStates, as an amicable settlement of all ('laims of ever\ 
 descri[)ti<m arisin}; out of such diti'erences, instead of the leiiffthened 
 <*ontroversy and litigation which lie foresaw^ must attend any plan of 
 arbitration. He was the mor»^ solicitous that such an umittable settle- 
 ment, without the intervention of third jiarties, should be a(h>pted. 
 because lu^ feared that so thorouj^h and eoniprehensive a ])resentation 
 befor(^ theTribuiml of Arbitration of the matters of law and of fact on 
 which the claims of this country rest, as it w»)uld be his duty to cause 
 to be made, mi,t>ht. for the moment, revive jiast excitements ami arouse 
 unnecessary apprehensions, if not imi>eril those ties of inlernational 
 kindness and j;()od will he so much desiics to sti'enf>lhen and make 
 Itei'pelnal. 
 
 The regret which he felt for the I'cjection by llei' Majesty's (.'ommis- 
 sioners of the projtosition foi- an amicable settlement is revived with 
 ;;reat Unvx'. by the lu'cessity of this correspondence. 
 
 The pi'oi)osition foi a Joint Hi.u'h Commission, which was made by Her 
 Majesty's (lovernment, would not have received the approi)ation of the 
 President had he supposed it was not to comprehend a consichuation 
 aiul adjustment of all the differences <;rowin<,' out of the acts of the 
 cruisers; nor could he have s'iven his sanction to the Treaty had it been 
 sujij^ested to liim or had he believed that any class of the claims whicli 
 ha<l been jtresented by this (Jovernment wore excliuled by the terms ol 
 sidnnission from jnesentation on the part of this (Jovernnn^nt to the 
 Tribunal of Arbitration. Jt was, in his ai)preciation, the chief merit ol 
 the modeof a<ljustnient adopted by the Commission, that it was on both 
 sides a. frank, full, ami unrestu'ved suricnder to impartial arbitrament, 
 under the rides therein i)rescribe(l, of everythinj;' that had created 
 such difierences. AVhatcver de,t>ree of importance mij^ht here or there 
 be attached to any of these complaints, the President desired and in 
 tended, as had tlie American Commissioners, that all, of every form 
 and character, should be laid before the Ti'ibiinal tor its final and abso 
 lute disposition, either by reco.nnition and settlement, or by rejection, 
 in order that in the futur*' the liarmony of jiersonal and political inter- 
 course between the two countries ini.niit ncNcr a.!j,aiii be disturbed In 
 any possible phase of the contro\ ersy. 
 
 in his ()])inion, since entry upon a thorough trial of the issues which 
 divide the t woCiovernments conid not be avoidetl, the claims for national 
 or in(lire(t losses, (refer) ed to in the note of Karl (Jranville,) as tlie.v 
 are put ic rward by this (loverninent, involve (piestions of i)ublic law 
 whi<'h the interests ol bolh (Jovernnients riMpiire should be deliiiilelv 
 settled. 
 
 Therel 
 ^Presiilen 
 itliat Her 
 ;of thcTi 
 losses an 
 HisLo 
 losses aii 
 jnent — w 
 of the dif 
 in the "(, 
 ^as losses 
 fliecessaii 
 |of all dil 
 |len<>('d tl 
 fTicaty, b 
 ;J diction u 
 w LTiiad\i 
 'fernnu'iit I 
 ;ble to ad( 
 'Treaty CO! 
 lis of the < 
 ■fdecision 1 
 Aviiich is I 
 Avhicli wei 
 TIiis(k 
 of tlieTi( 
 TheobJ 
 for an aaii 
 countries; 
 R;.,n'eeinenl 
 tieinent, a 
 Ihe result 
 the claims 
 mate of t 
 tlement, c 
 The tirsi 
 Governm 
 adjust all 
 ftll the clai 
 feii(!ricall.\ 
 0f arbitra't 
 Hon or r( 
 claims <iro 
 bama claii 
 "of history, 
 bunal of A 
 , Whatai 
 for the lirs 
 ^ally i)art i 
 '_ It would 
 ticular i)a.>^ 
 their iidnis 
 Majesty's 1 
 public j)ap 
 iVom the b( 
 been that t 
 
 ,i*- 
 
["li.M'ION. 
 
 CORRESl'ONDKNUK KKSI'ECTIXC. (JENE, A AUiaTKATlON. 
 
 I'n'sitlciit. wild 
 
 (> tliiit liiin Mild 
 
 note so liiipi>ilv 
 
 he iic(('|>t<'(l tlic 
 liiiiciit ol' ;i -loiiil 
 sctrliii.u' (crtaiii 
 11 jiart lliiit till' 
 itlcr tilt'. nMiioviil 
 ic IJiiiU'd Suites, 
 lit'li liav;' i;ivou 
 •In i ins." 
 
 )mmissioii woultl 
 ■ the propositioii. 
 I upon an<l paid 
 
 claims of even 
 f the lenp'tlienetl 
 toiid any plan ol 
 I ainii'able settle 
 luld be adopted. 
 ii ])resentatioii 
 lAV and of fact oii 
 lis duty to euust' 
 iiciits and arouse 
 
 of inleniational 
 otiicii and iiiaUc 
 
 liijcsty's Coinniis- 
 is ri'vived wifli 
 
 was made by Hei- 
 probation of the 
 a consideration 
 the acts of the 
 rcatyhad it been 
 tlie claims which 
 by the terms ol 
 )veriinieut to the 
 the chief merit ol 
 at it was on both 
 tial arbitrament, 
 hat had created 
 H'hl here or tln^re 
 desired and in 
 11, of every form 
 ; linal and abso 
 or by rejection, 
 nd political inter- 
 be disturbe<l bv 
 
 tlie issues whieli 
 laims for natituial 
 ranville.) as they 
 »iis of puliiic law 
 »ul(l lie (leliiiitely 
 
 Therefore it is with inil'ei;iiieil surprise and sineei'e reL^ret that the 
 
 . J'resideiit has received tlie intimation, conveyeil in ICail (iraiiville's note, 
 
 i<;tliat Her .Majesty's (lovernmeiit hold that it is not williin the province 
 
 ?'of tlie Trilmnal of Arbitration to decide U[»()n certain claims forindirect 
 
 'losses and injuries. 
 
 His Lordship, however, does not assign any reason for the o|)inion that 
 
 los.ses and injuries witli i'«'si)et't to which tiiere has Iteen no conceal- 
 
 iiiciit — which were i)resenl"d to the llritish ne,y<)tiators at the openiiii"" 
 
 of the discussion in prcc'isely the sanu! manner as they are juit forward 
 
 in th(^ "(Jase" — not as claims for which a specific demand was made, but 
 
 ^us losses and injuries consiMpient upon tlie acts <'onipIaiiicd of, and 
 
 tiiecessarily to be taken into e(piitabl(M;onsiderat ion in a linal setllemeiit 
 
 Of all dillerences between the two countries — which remained unchal- 
 
 jleiijicd tIiroii;>Ii the entire lu'^otiations, and not reliinpiished in the 
 
 ;^Ti('aty, but covered by oik^ of its aUeriiati\('s, are not within the jnris- 
 
 I diction of the Arbitrators. 
 
 I Unadvised as to the reasoniiiii which has broiij^ht Iler INrajesty's Gov- 
 ernment to the o|»inion stated by Lord (! ranville, the I*resid(Mit is una- 
 ble to adopt it ; but, beinj;' convinced of the justice of his views that the 
 Treaty contemplated the settleineiitof all lii.' claimsof the ITiiited States, 
 is of the opinion that he could not abainhm them, e.\ce])t alter a fair 
 decision by an ini])artial arbitration, lie seeks no nieaniiij;" in the Tieaty 
 vvhicli is not i)ateiit on its face; he advances no pretensions at (ieiieva 
 Avhi(!li were not put forth pending' the neyotiatioiis at \\'ashiiij;lon. 
 
 This (rovernnieiit knows not where to liiid the nieaniii.n or the intent 
 of the Tieaty unless within the Treaty itself. 
 
 The obje(!f of theTreaty, asdeclared in its preamble, was "to provide 
 for an amicable setrlemeiit oi' all causes of (liflerenc<'. between ilie two 
 countries;" but tlu^ Treaty is not, of itself, the settlement; it is an 
 Rj.(reeinent between the (iovei-nineiits as to the mode of reaching;" a set- 
 tlement, and its Article \I enua.iics the coiitra(!tiii^' ])arties to (consider 
 fche result of the arbitration as a full, jierfi'ct, and linal settlement of all 
 the claims. Tutil that be reached.no protVer of withholdin.i;' an esti- 
 mate of th(^ indirect losses, dependent on the hope of an amicable set- 
 tlement, can be claimed as a waiver or an estopp(»l. 
 
 The first arti(;le recites that ditfereimes have arisen between the two 
 Governments, and still exist, and i»rovides, '•in onh'r to remove and 
 adjust all complaints and claims on the part of the United States, that 
 ftU the claims ///•o/r/»;/ out of acts committetl by tin; aforesaid vessels, and 
 generlcally known as the 'Alabama (daiins,*" be referred to a tribunal 
 pf arbitration, to be (iomposcid as therein provided. There is no limita- 
 tion or restriction to any part or description of thi^ claims. .1// the 
 claims firowinji' out of certain acts, and generically known as the "xYla- 
 baiiia claims," were referred. What they were is a (|ueslioii of fa(!t and 
 of history. Which of tin iii are well founded is a (lueslion for the Tii- 
 bunal of Arbitration. 
 
 , What are called the indirect losses and claims are not now put forward 
 for the lirst time. For years they have been prominently and histori- 
 cally part of the "Alabama claims," 
 _ It would be su])ertlii!)us to cpiote, or, perhaps, even to refer to, par- 
 ticular passajL-es in the i)ublislicd instructions of this (lovernment to 
 their minister to Cireat Ibitain ; in the notes of that minister to llev 
 Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for F(n•ei.^u Affaiis; or in other 
 public papers, to show that the expectation of this ( Jovernnient has, 
 troiii the be^inninp: of the acts whicii .yave rise to the "Alabama claims," 
 been that the IJritish (loveriiinent woiihl indeinnifv the United States. 
 
'1^' 
 
 II f 
 
 ll 
 
 14: 
 
 m 
 
 f.. :;. >» 
 
 ■ <', if- 
 
 I- 1' , 
 
 
 
 %. 
 
 « I- 
 
 
 8 COUKESrONDKNCi: RKSPl'X'TING GKNKVA AUlUTliATION. 
 
 Iiicidi'iitiil or ('<»iiH('(|iU'iitial (liiiiiiij-cs wcic oltcii iiiciitioned as includiMl 
 ill tlic iiccoiiiitiilulil.v. 
 
 Ill llic i»i();ui('ss()t' llic ;icts wliifli j^avc rise (o tli(! claiiiis, Iiioli IJrilisli 
 antli(»iity was not waiitiuji' to warn llcr Majrsty's (Jovciiiiiiciit in t!n' 
 llonsc ol" ('oiiiiiioiis llial "(lic.v Iiad been inllictiiiJL^' an aiiioiint of daiiia;;(' 
 on that coiintiy (the United States) ;;i'('ati'r tiiaii would l)i' produced Ity 
 many ordinary wars,"' and to indicate, as part of tliat dania;;e, the h>sses 
 to \vh()se preseiitidioii exception is now taken. 
 
 Pnhlic men in l»ot!i countries discnssed tliem, wiiile the public pres- 
 on t!ie one side and on the other advanced and combated them with 
 an eaiiieslness and warmth that Inoujuht them into a ])ro]niueiice lie- 
 yoiid the direct losses and iiijui'cs sustained by indi\i(bials. 
 
 A (h'taih'd statement oi' their claims, enumerating;' and settinj;' t'oi'Ii 
 the indirect losses juecisely as they are advanced in tin' Case, was sub- 
 mitted by the American negotiators to the Joint Ili;';h ('((iniuission in 
 the lirst discussi(»u ottlic claims, on the sth day of .March, and a[>)tear.s 
 in the I'rotocol, approved oi. the Itli day of May. 
 
 Jler 31ajesty"s (i(tvcrnment, therefore, cannot, in the absence of any 
 speeitic eNclusion of these daiuaj^'es by the Treaty, be said to l)e taken 
 unawares by their ]ueseutation to the Triltunal, and the I'resideiit was 
 not at liberty to rej^ard as withdrawn or settled any of the (tlaims 
 enumerati'd in a statement i)repared and ap])rii\('d by the Joint llij^ii 
 Commission after their dis(;ussions were closed, and within four days of 
 the sij;nin,i;' of a treaty which declares that the ditferema'S which had 
 arisen with I'csix-ct to the "Alal)ama claims'' still exist. Appearinji 
 thus, fnuii whatever cause, not to have been eliminated Irom the 
 cnumeiated claimsof the United States, the I'resideiit had not the ])ower. 
 of his own accord, to withhold them from the Case to be presented to 
 tlie Tribunal of Arbitration ; but in frankness and in sincerity of i)ur- 
 ])ose to remove, in the spiiit of the Treaty, all causes of differem^e be- 
 tween the two (.lovernmeiits, he has set them forth before the (Jeiievii 
 Tribuualj content toaccet)t any award that theTiibunal may think lit to 
 make on their account. 
 
 Jt is within your personal kii()wled<;e that this (Joverniiient has never 
 expected or dcsiix-d any iiiireas()nal)le ])e(;nuiary compensation on their 
 aci'ount, and has never cnteitained the visionary thou;;lit of such an 
 extrava.uant measure of damajU'cs as finds expression in the excited laii- 
 yuaj^e of the iJritish i)ress, and seems most umuH'ountably to have taken 
 ])Ossession of the minds of some, even, of the statesmen of Great 
 Britain. 
 
 A mixed conimission is now in session in this city, nnder the Treaty, 
 to which are referred all (tlaims o<" citizens or subjects of either power 
 (other than Alabama claims) which arose out of acts committed during 
 ji specitied jieriod. 
 
 In the correspondence which ]»receded the aii'reement for tlu^ meeting;' 
 of the Joint Ili^'h Commission which ne.u'otiated the Treaty, lan<4ua,i:i' 
 was purposely agreed upon and nsed to exi)ress the idea which the rep 
 resentatives of the two Governments ent(!rtained, that no claim founded 
 on contra(;t, and, especially, no claim on account of the rebel or confetl 
 erate cotton (h'bt, was to be i)resented. Similar laii,i;ua<;e, and for the 
 same avowed and admitted purjiose, was used in the Treaty. 
 
 Anioiiy other claims of an unexiiected character luesented by the 
 agent of the JJritish Government, there was one for a part of the confed- 
 erate debt, which is undeistood to be held in Great IJritaiii to tln' 
 extent of many nnllions. Jmmediately (ui its ju'csentatioii the United 
 States remonstrated, and requested the IJritish Government to instruct 
 
 CO 
 
 -their aj;t' 
 Jtheir reii 
 iGoxcrnm 
 land the c 
 lltefore tin 
 *jiiid the d 
 claiiiiaiit. 
 
 The at t 
 fiice in fa 
 t(» I lie niK 
 <;Vitli rete 
 eiilrd. 
 
 The Un 
 
 The (MM! 
 uiylif lia\ 
 
 They <!< 
 ^tion o\ er : 
 and the (|i 
 tions com 
 iu^ out of 
 ^K)ssibilit> 
 "two count 
 I The I're 
 ntetween 
 B^reaty. 
 f Jle indu 
 'lias been < 
 'Of dilferei 
 incidental 
 prive the 
 two jiowei 
 passions, ; 
 Of" a disini 
 ' 1 ai 
 
 General 
 
 Ko. 14.J.J 
 
 I have t( 
 
 *n]iy of E, 
 
 jcep\y. 
 
 '» Your am 
 
 and ])ru(h'i 
 
 You will 
 
 the opinioi 
 
 raised by I 
 
 JUakedly* ai 
 
 I Althougl 
 
 M!.:'K 
 
 m 
 
ITUATION. 
 
 COlMUvSroNDKNCK HKSI'KCTINC OKNKVA AIJMITUATION. 
 
 !) 
 
 ioiied as iiicliidcd 
 
 liiiis, lii;;h Hiitisli 
 ivci'iiiiicitt ill tlif 
 mount ul' diiiiui^i' 
 il lie piodiK'cd l»y 
 iitiia^t'. tlui losses 
 
 I lie public- i>i'('ss 
 bated tliciii with 
 il |)roiuiiK'ii('(' be- 
 duals. 
 
 Hid scttiii.n' i'oi 'il 
 ic ( 'asc, was sub- 
 Il ('oiiiiiiissiou ill 
 ircli, and apjiears 
 
 (■ absence of any 
 ' said to be taken 
 lie I'l'esideiit was 
 iiy of tli(! clainis 
 »y tlie fJoiid Ili^Ii 
 
 illiiii Ibiii' daysol 
 •eiiees wliicli had 
 '\isf. Appearinj^ 
 linated from the 
 lad not tlie power. 
 () be jneseiited to 
 I sincerity of pur- 
 
 of ditfereiHie be- 
 K'fore the (lenevu 
 il may think lit to 
 
 niinent has never 
 leiisatioM on their 
 on;;ht of such an 
 n the t'xcited Ian- 
 ibly to have taken 
 tesinen of (Jreal 
 
 under tlie Treaty. 
 s of either jjowei 
 L'oniniitted diirinu 
 
 it for the nieetin;: 
 Treaty, lan.i4ua.i:i' 
 ea which the rep 
 no claim I'oiuuh'd 
 le rebel or confetl- 
 uaj^e, and for tlu- 
 Treaty. 
 
 ])resented by tlir 
 >art of the con led- 
 at Uritain to tlif 
 tation the United 
 ninent to instriut 
 
 'their aj^eiit to withdraw that claim. 'I"lieir renionslraiic(^ was unheeded; 
 
 their re(|iiest was not answered. If any iiist ruction was j;iv«'ii, this 
 
 j*i<lo\ ('rnmeiit was not informed I hereof, and it faih'd to lie ()l»ser\ed: 
 
 |jiiid the claim was jircssed to ariiiiineiil, 'I'lie I'aited Stales deiiiiirred 
 
 ^before the commission to its Jurisdiction over claims of that description, 
 
 jind the decision (d' the commission disposed of the case adverse to tlu^ 
 
 claimant. 
 
 The attitude id" the two (lovernnn'iits is now reversed, with the dilfer- 
 eiice ill favor of the Tnited Stales, that tliere was no fiuestion raised a;, 
 to the iindeistaiidiii.'X of b(»tli ( lo\ eiiimenis at the date of the Treaty, 
 villi referfi-'e to tli<' exclusion of <'laiiiis of I'le cliiuacter tlr'.i pre- 
 i^eiilfd. 
 
 riie I'liitetl Stales seek not to be the judii'e in their own case. 
 
 The course which they inirsued afforded ii ha}>py solution to what 
 Jiiiulit lia\(' becM a (piestioii of embarrassmeid. 
 
 if They d.esire to iiiaintain the jursdictioii of llie Tribunal ol .Vi'bitra- 
 'tion o\er all the unsettled claims, in order that, lii'ln;;' judicially leeided, 
 and the (juestions of law involved therein bein;;' adjudi<'ated, all (pies- 
 tioiis coniK'cted witli or arisin;; out of tlni Alabama claims, or " jj.row- 
 in.L;' out of the acts" (d' the cruisers, may be forever removed f''om the 
 liossibility ()f disturbing the perfect lianuoiiy of relations between the 
 two countries. 
 
 The President reri'refs tliat thieve should be aiiv dill'ereiice of opinion 
 'between the two (ioxcrnmciils on any ([uestion connected with the 
 Treaty. 
 
 ■ lie iinbilu'cs, however, the earnest hoj);' that the disp(^sition which 
 lias been <'<pially iiianifesled by both < io\ernments to i^'inove all causes 
 'of difference between tiu'iii will brinj^' them to an a;^ieement iipoa the 
 incidental (piestion which has arisen, and will allow no obstacU; to de- 
 prive the woi'ld of tll(^ e.\ami)le of ad\aiiced civilization ju'esented by 
 tMo ])owerful States exhil)itiii,i;' the supremacy of law and of reason over 
 pi'.ssions, and deferring their own Jiidyiiierds to the calm interpretation 
 of a disinterested and (liscriniiiiatin;.i' tribunal. 
 1 am, sir, vour obedient servant, 
 
 IIAMILTOX FISH. 
 
 (leiieral IIOUEUT ('. SoilENClc, dr., dr., dr. 
 
 Xo. i> 
 
 ?.Ii: Fish to (Jcncral Si-licnck. 
 
 Ko. 115.] 
 
 JJ1:i'A!M'3ii:nt or Statj:, 
 
 ]V((sluii(jtoit, Fcbniurij 117, l<S7l*. 
 I have to acknowledno. your No. l-"}'), of date of February (5, inc.losin,!;- 
 CO])y of Earl (Jranville's note to you of the .'Jd iusiaiit,' and of your 
 i'e])Iy. 
 
 » Your answer to F^arl Granville is marked with your usual intellij-'cuce 
 aud ])riidence, and meets the warm approval of the rresideiit. 
 
 You will receive herewith adispatch of the same date with this, <>i\ iiiff 
 
 the opinion of this Uovennnent on the cpu'stion suddenly and abrupt ly 
 
 raised by Her :\[ajesty's (rovermnent, and presented by Fail Granville 
 
 nakedly and without any ai'/;ument. 
 
 J Although no reply is invited by the note of the British Government, 
 
r 
 
 10 
 
 CORKESrONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITKA.TION. 
 
 mi 
 
 
 m 
 
 ... 
 
 :f 
 
 I 
 
 [ik 
 
 m 
 
 '■m 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 K 'U 
 
 m 
 
 till' soflU'iiu'iit of iill cansos <»i" (lillt'i'tMice botweeii the two countries, 
 juid tilt! succi'ssrul example of tlie inoilf of si'ttliiij,' iiitoiniational dilfer- 
 oiict's «'stal)lisli(Ml by the Treaty, ar(» so earnestly desired by this (lovern- 
 Dieiit, that we aecept tiie fiieiidly assuraiieos of the British note, disre- 
 {i'ardiiij;' its bold and siubh'ii announ<!einent of an opinion which we 
 think unsnstained by tln^ history of the negotiations between the two 
 (ioverunients, or by tiie events which j^ave rise to the (ilainis, and f( 
 which we see no lo^^ical foundation in the Treaty itself. 
 
 Yoii will, therefore, read the dispatch referred to to Lord (rranville 
 and may leave with him a copy in (;as« ho desires it. 
 1 am, sir, >our obedient .servant, 
 
 ija:\iilt()x fksit. 
 
 (leneral IJoukri' ('. Sciiknck, <(r., dr., dr. 
 
 :ov 
 
 ^'o. 10. 
 
 (iCiH'ntI >SV7/c«<7i' to Mr. Fisli. 
 
 flclfiriiim. 
 
 L<>M)<)>', Fihni(iy)f L'8, 1872. (Sent ."i.K* p. m.) 
 (Iranville desires me to send change of lan;4na,u"e of his jjroposal, as 
 follows: After woi'd dune, substitute "that the United States donotask 
 the Arbitrators t(» a(bnit ()r take into their consideration these imbrect 
 claims, either as elements for the detei'mination of anyone sum in ji;ross 
 which they may award in (tase of decision against Great IJritain on the 
 point of liability for any of the vessels, or otherwise. And that in case 
 of damages beinj;' referred to assessors, they will not bring' forward these 
 <'laims before the assessors.'' 
 
 This variation of words does not seem to me to change meaning. 
 
 Xo. 11, 
 
 ^1//'. /V,s7/ i<> (ioKidl SclioicL 
 
 ! 'l'('lc,nr;nii. 
 
 I)i;i'Al!'r>IENT Ol" Si'ATE, 
 
 M'd.sliiiujtoii, Ft'hru((rn '2\), 1S72. 
 Cannot agree to (Iranville's i)roi)osal as nmde. Desire to met^t the 
 Ib'ilish (lOvtMiuuent in any honorable adjustment of the incidental 
 <pies(ion which has arisen. Our answer is very friendly, and will, we 
 hope, open (he way for a settlenwMit. Whatever the IJritish Commis- 
 sioners may lia\i' iufeiKb'd, oi' thoiiglil among themselves, they did not 
 eliminate the claims for indirect losses, they never asked us to withdraw 
 them, n(»r didtliey i'.llude to them dire(!tly, or in plain terms; and after 
 tluMlelibeialions of the doiiit Comini?!sion were clf)sed, Tenlerden anil 
 till' lirilisli Cjinmissioncrs allowed tlicin to l»e formally enumerated in 
 statement of llli .Mav without a word of dissent. 
 
 %o. 17'.'. 
 
 On th 
 and wit 
 tiew wit 
 him ac(|i 
 Commun 
 anxiety. 
 
 ]'\)IIo\\ 
 
 ilig that, 
 jto their 
 iccomp: 
 the <-lain 
 iJeneva < 
 to decide 
 tlement < 
 fnl carry 
 pie of a I 
 difliciiltit 
 of tlie fr 
 liad comi 
 n.nd view 
 they had 
 read to h 
 him a co] 
 , lie ren 
 rai'st kiH) 
 the sulijei 
 me, ther( 
 copy, I h 
 him that 
 Thi.s. (»f c 
 ilig him t 
 riedly cal 
 ]>efore 
 til at as II 
 perhaps j 
 and what 
 any time 
 two cou.. 
 thought t 
 unoflicial 
 Complieat 
 him in s 
 propriety 
 iiiterconr 
 fullv, as I 
 I ha\ 
 
 II. m. II 
 
IBITRATION. 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 11 
 
 the two countrios, 
 ntcnuilional ditt'er- 
 '0(1 by this (Jovern- 
 IJritish note, disir- 
 
 opinioii wliicli \vc 
 IS bl'tWCMMl tlio two 
 
 the chums, and for 
 to Lord (rniiiviUe, 
 
 :\nLT()y fish. 
 
 (Sent 0.4:0 p. ni.) 
 
 of his proposal, as 
 'd States do not ask 
 ition these indirect 
 lyone snni in jjross 
 leat lii'itain on tho 
 And tliat in case 
 niny: fiu'ward tiiese 
 
 inu'e nuMnin"'. 
 
 I'VE, 
 
 iriKoi/ LM>, ISTl*. 
 
 sire to nie(>t tlic 
 )\' the ineich'tital 
 idly, and will, we 
 IJiitish Comiiiis- 
 Ives, tiiey did not 
 cd ns to witiidraw 
 terms; and after 
 1, Teiiterden and 
 Iv eiiuineraled in 
 
 I 
 
 Ito. I7!». 
 
 No. 12. 
 
 (iouTdl tichenclc In Mr. Fish. 
 [Extrai't.l 
 
 liEC ATIDX or THE 1'MT]:1) STAI'ES, 
 JmiuIoii, March Id, l.STU. (Ueeeixed A|)ril 1.) 
 
 On llie day of the rcccjttion of yonr note of the L'Tth ol' l'\'t>rnary, 
 
 tiiid within a few honrs after its arri\ al, 1 was cnaltled to have an inter- 
 view with Lord (iranville at the Forei.nn Ollice, with a view t»» niakin.;; 
 ||ini aetpiainted. a^ii-eahly to your iiistrnetioiis, with its conti nts. Yonr 
 jniinnnication had been looked for l»y tiie (iovernment In-re wirh great 
 nxicty. 
 f roilowinu' in siilistanee tiie laiisiiia,!:,'!' of yonr No. I !."», 1 l>e;;an by say- 
 ki\ii liiat, altlionjj;li llerMaJesty's (iovernment iiad not inviteil any reply 
 fo tiieir note, but had been content to make a naked annouiiecmeiit, un- 
 accompanied by reasons or ar<i'iiment, <tf tlicir opinion that certain of 
 file claims put forward by the United States in their Case presented at 
 IJeneva did not come uithin the jirovince of the Tribunal of Arbitration 
 |o decide, yet siudi was the earnest desire of my (iovernment foi' a set- 
 tlement (»f all dilferences between the, two countries, end for the success- 
 iiil carryiii.u' out of a treaty which (tffered to the world so liood an exam- 
 %1(» of a ]ieaceful and eifective method for the removal of international 
 llilliculties, that tlu' ['resident was most ready to accept the assurances 
 f>f the friendly feel iii,i;s \vhich had prompte(l that note; and that you 
 ^ad communicated to me in a dispatch, with some fullness, the opinion 
 rtiid views of the ( Jovernnieiit of the L'uited States on tiie [loint which 
 they had raised. I said also to Lard (Iranville that 1 was authorized to 
 read to him the dispatch refeired to, and, if he desired it, tv> leave with 
 him a co]»y of it. 
 
 ■ lie remarked to me that, beiii,ii' Just then ]>ressed and occupied as 1 
 must know he was, if I were to reatl it lie should not probably make it 
 tlie subject of any comment at that time ; and he said, if aureeabU; to 
 me, therefore, and uii(lerstandiii<4' Ihar, anticipatinj;' his icipiest for a 
 Copy, 1 had one already prepared, he would ask me to leave that with 
 him that he mijiht have it to lay be(bre the Cal iiiet at an early meetin,!'. 
 This, of course. I consented to do. I yave him the copy therelore, leav- 
 In.i,' him to return to the House of Lords, from wlii<'li he had been hur- 
 riedly called to meet his appointment with me. 
 
 . Lefore we parted, however, 1 thoiij^lit it proper to say to ills liOidship 
 ij|iatas Her .Maj<'sty"s (iovi'rnmeiit would nndou'»tedly lake a little time, 
 perhaps a few days, to consider whether they should make any answci', 
 and what answer, to this communication from tiie I'nited Stati's, if at 
 any time in the interval Ik! (h'emed it a<lvisable. in the interest of our 
 two con:.!.! 'S, to have free, conlidi'iitial conxcrsation with me, or if he 
 thought that j^ood undi'istaiidiii;:^- mi<j;lit be iiromoted liy any excliaiijic of 
 unollieial sri|i;j;«'stioiis touchiiiy," some mode of issue from our present 
 Complication, I would always be hajipy to meet him and co-operalc v ith 
 him in such friendly endcavoi'. He assented at once cordially to the 
 
 {>ropriety of our keeitiiij;' oursehi's in such relation and free u'notlicial 
 ntercourse with each other; but he did not express himself as hope- 
 fully, as he thouiiiit I did, of an ultimate satisfactory adjustment. 
 I have the honor to be, wvx r<'speel fullv, voiir obedient servant. 
 
 iJoiiT. c. s("iii:n(:iv. 
 
 Hull. llA^iii.roN I'isii. 
 
 t'<<<ri Inri/ iij' State, W'/tshiiiijt'fii, 
 
:l. , 
 
 ■(: p' 
 
 12 
 
 COUKESPONDENCE EESrECTIXG GENi:VA ARIUTIIATIOX. 
 
 No. ];5. 
 
 Geumtl Svlx'Hcl; to Mr. Fluli. 
 
 No. ISO.J 
 
 I.F.dA'i'ioN OF '1 UK 1\\ii'i:t) States, 
 LoniUtn, Marck 111, 1S7U. (lIect.'iv(.Ml Ai>ril 1.) 
 
 Siu : ! liavc biircly tiiito to triiiismit, so as to catcU iiMJiiCLMistown 
 tlic mail wiiicli has li'lt Liverpool to-day. tiic r('j)!y of Lord Griiiivillo tu 
 your dis]>;!tcli of the I'Ttli rchriiary. I( caiiH? to iiie at olcvoti o\;loik 
 last ni,'^lit, and the printed " AltMiior.uidiim " whieli accoiiipaiiiesit asaii 
 inclosiire, and wliieli is to be taken as a part of the ('0!iiinunicatioii, 
 reached nie only tiiis afternoon. 
 
 J send also, herciwitli, a copy of my answer to His Liirdshij), acknow', 
 edjiin;;' t!i<^ recei[>t of his note and tlie " -Memoriindum."' 
 
 Yon will observe, that Her MaJ(!sty's (joveriiment haw construed yoii! 
 dispatch to nie as containiuu' ai»]);irently an invitation to open fully ,i 
 discussion with you on the (|uestio(i of the. rii^ht of the. I.ruited State> 
 toinclu<le in their Case jtresented at (rcucn'a any claim for indirect lossis 
 or dama.i^'es. There is nothinji' advanced, however, <'ither in the way ei 
 any proposal I'or the removal of the 'IilU(;ulty between us, or intiinatiii;; 
 ■".vhat may be the conse(pu'nce in case of continued difference of o[»inioii, 
 It is still but the noti(!e which was contained in Lor<l (.Jranvillc's note ni 
 tiie ;>d ultin; », accom]>anied now by the reasons which have led He, 
 Majesty's (loverninent to the conclusion which was then communicateii, 
 
 iJut 1 must close in haste, without further comment. 
 I have the honor to be, sir, vour obedient servant, 
 
 IIUDT. C. SCIIEXCK. 
 
 lion. IlAAiiLTOx Fisir, 
 
 t<(cn't(iii/ of N(if( , ^y<l!'■J^nl(|t(>n. 
 
 I \ 
 
 [liH'IoMiiT 1 ii. No. 1:;.] 
 FaU'I (Jranrillc in (liiicnd fSclieucJ:. 
 
 FoKEKiN Ol'l'iCK, March L'O, iSTl'. 
 
 SiK : 1 have laid before my collea.yues Mr. Fish's dispatch of theL'Tlli 
 ultimo, of which, at my I'Cijuest, ami aiitlunized by your (iovernmeni, 
 you ,!;ave nie a co]»y on the 1-ltIi instant. 
 
 Her Majesty's (iovernment reco^'uize with pleasure the ass-araiices ei 
 the President that he sincerely desires to promote a lirm ami abidiii,: 
 friendship between the two nations; and, animated by the sanu^ spirii. 
 they j>ladly avail themselves of the invitation which your (lovtu-nmeiii 
 appear to have .;;iven, that they should state the reasons which induccii 
 them to make the declaration contained in my note, to you of the M 
 ultimo, and which 1 then iiurposely omit'i'd, in the hope of obtaiiiiu::. 
 without any controversial tliscussion. the assent of the CrovernmenI m 
 the (Tuited States. 
 
 3Ir. Fish s.iys, " What are called the indirect losses and claims av 
 not now |)ut forward for the lirst time. I'\)r years they have been prom 
 iiK'iilly and historically pai't of the 'Alabama claims.' It would be sii 
 pcrllnous to »pn»te, ov perhaps even to refer 'to, paiticular passages in 
 the pul)lished inst met ions of this (iitvernnu'ut to their Minister to (Ireir 
 IW'itain, in tho notes of that Minister to Her ."Majesty's Principal Secri 
 tary ol' State tor I-'orei^'u Affairs, or in other [juldic papers, to show tlm 
 
 t 
 
 Hie exp( 
 Which 
 ibent w( 
 damaive; 
 assci'tio 
 are slio\ 
 Wue tha 
 ♦ei'c ma 
 l^e dire( 
 ibpture 
 (f eorjria 
 libiie w( 
 
 fese di 
 No m( 
 (l|iirin,n- t 
 Adams, 
 <lf the C( 
 Mr. Keve 
 ©ommis 
 tslie olhci; 
 biiiaa cla 
 1' The lir.J 
 #commu 
 drdy doll 
 that tin 
 on the 1 
 mission o 
 all claims 
 condition 
 United St 
 belliji'ereii 
 claims on 
 the asser 
 upon IJrit 
 Lord CI 
 In Mr. J 
 inent of t 
 bfe si'rouiH 
 they pur] 
 grounds i 
 Other sim 
 Vf«re tliesi 
 "Alabaim 
 occurs in 
 ttary, l>s(i; 
 tiro (lovei 
 of their o 
 siniilar ve 
 as compre 
 eniment (i 
 ])own, t 
 the appoii 
 ttoii and a 
 toward lb 
 against II 
 Ule i»arf o 
 
liTTRATIOX. 
 
 COKRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATrON. 
 
 1 o 
 
 IVA) Statks, 
 [tH"ji\X'il April I.) 
 Itch at" (},iiCL'iist()\vii 
 t' L')r(l (liaiivillo tn 
 ,e at eU'Vi'ii (»\;l()rk 
 i('eoini)aiiit'sit asaii 
 the ('()!niimiii(;ati()ii. 
 
 Lovilshij), acknowl- 
 
 lave coustniod yoiii 
 itioii to opoii fully ii 
 t [\\r. United State- 
 11 lor iiidin^et lossc- 
 either in the way ui 
 eu lis, or iiitimatiiii; 
 iilVereiU'C of opinion, 
 •d (Jraiiville's note ni 
 which have led He. 
 then eoMiiimui(;ateii, 
 nt. 
 vaiit, 
 L\ C. SCllEXCK. 
 
 .;, Marrli HO, 1872. 
 
 dispateh of theJTtli 
 Noar (loveriinient, 
 
 felic exi^'ctation of tliis Gov<'rnnieiit lias, from the beftinnin^' of tlie aets 
 rhieh jiave rise to the ' Ahihaaia ehiinis,' l)ee:i tliat tlie IJritish (Jovern- 
 lent \v<)uld iiMh'innify the United States. Incidental or eonse(inential 
 ■iaMia;A'<'^ were often mentioned as included in the a(!countal)ility.'' This 
 asseition does n(tt ai)])ear t(» me accurately to re])resent the facts as they 
 are shown in the correspondence between the two (loveriiments. It is 
 l^rue that in some of the earlier letters of Mr. Adams va<;'ue sujigestions 
 
 trii 
 
 w 
 
 ', the assarauces oi 
 , lii.ii and abidin: 
 
 by the same spirit. 
 I your iioverumeiii 
 sons which induccii 
 V, to you of the •"•li 
 
 hope of obtaining;. 
 
 the (.rovernment ni 
 
 vses and claims an 
 
 li' I iiii I 111 noiiit; </i I Mv » HI in 1 IV 1 n 1 .-> wi ><• I . ^ >\fii iii>n , ,.^,n .....^j^.. .■l.......• 
 re made as to i>ossible liabilities of this country exteudiiij^' beyond 
 ' direct claims tjf American citizens for s])ecitic losses arisinj;- from the 
 <ii]»tnre of their vessels by the Alabama, Florida, Shenandoah, and 
 eorj.;ia • but no claims were ever deiined or formulated, and certainly 
 )ne were ever desca'ibed by the phrase ''Alabama claims/' (.'xce[)t 
 aiese direct claims of American citizens. 
 r><'o mention of any claim for nr.tional or iudin^'t losses had been madi^ 
 
 firiii<4' the iie,u'otiation, commenciii,^" with ^Ir. SewartTs disjiatch fo Mr. 
 dams, dated the 27tli of Au;.!;ust. IStid, and endinj; with the si.iiiiature 
 0i the Convention of the 10th of Xovember, ISOS, Ity l^ord Stanley and 
 Mv. iieverdy .Johnson, by the [Vth article of which power was jiivcn to 
 ©onunissioners ''to adjudicate ui)ou the class of claims relerred to in 
 tfie ollicial correspondence between the two (lovernmeiits as the 'Ala- 
 Mama claims.'" 
 *l The lirst subsequent mention of any claim for national losses was in 
 
 S communication, unauthorized by his (loverirnent, made by Mr. liev- 
 (ly .lolinson, in i^farch, ISfiO, to Ijord Clarendon, in whicii he su^<4«'sted 
 tliat the terms of the Convention si<>ned by him with Loi'd (.'larendon, 
 Ctti the 14th of January, which <'0!ii])ris(>d a reference to a Mixed Com- 
 mission of the "Alabama claims," should be eiilar<j;ed so as to include 
 all claims on the part of either (loverument upon the other, an essential 
 condition of the projiosal beinj^' that, in case a claim was set up by the 
 United States, founded on the reco^iiiitiou of the Conlederate States as 
 bi©! liferents, it should be open to the JUitish (lovernment to advance 
 claims on their i)art, such as a claim for injury to British interests by 
 the assertion and exercist! of bellijierent ri^ihts by the United States 
 Upon IJritisli commerce. 
 
 liord Clarendon at once declined to entertain this suu'ii'cstitm. 
 
 In Mr. Fish's dispatch ol' the iMtli of September, ISdO, the (loveru- 
 int'ut of the United States intimated that they considered there mijilit 
 bfe .ijrounds for some claims of a larf>«>r and more public nature, tliou,i>h 
 tttey purposely abstained at that time fr<mi makiujn' them: but the 
 grounds indicated were not limired to the acts of the Alabama and 
 dUier simihu' vessels, or to any mere conseipiences of su(!li acts, nor 
 were thes(^ i)ublic claims then described or referred to in any manner as 
 "Alabama claims."' That expression, ihe "Alabama claims,'' which lirst 
 occurs in a letter from ]Mr. Seward to Sir F. lUiice, of the 12th of dan- 
 uary, ISOT, had always been used in the corresi)ondence between the 
 two (loveriiments to describe the claims of American citizens on account 
 of their own direct losses by the depredations of the Alabama and other 
 Sllnilar vessels, and had never been employed to describe, or been treated 
 as coniprcheudiu,!;', any luiblie or national claims whatever of tlu' (lov- 
 emuient of the Uiiiffd States. 
 
 ley have been in'oi'i Down, therefore, to the time when Her Ma,jesly"s(!overnnieiit proposed 
 
 His.' It would be sii th«^ a])poiutiueiil of a -Joint lii.iih Ccunmission to settle the I'ishery (^)ues- 
 
 I'ticular jtassa.u'es i: tlon and all other (|Uestions atlectiii.Li' the reflations of the Unite(i States 
 
 'ir Minister to (iriM: toward Her .Alajesty's possessions in North America, no actual claim 
 
 ly's Principal Seen afaiiist Her Majesty's (roverument had been formulated or notilied on 
 
 apers, toshow tlia iMv \y,\v\ of the Ignited Slates, except for the ca[)ture or destriulioii of 
 
^ffT 
 
 14 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 § 
 
 ■i 
 
 I ■ ' tri 
 
 I'm t* ''■■ 
 
 r . . 1 
 
 i • ' 
 
 ■ l 
 
 l)roi»('i'ty of iixlividiiiil citi/i'iis of the United Htates by tlio Aliibainu 
 iiiid other siinilar vessels. 
 
 When Jler Miijest.v's (rovernuient eonsented, at the re(jM<>st of the 
 (loveiiinient of the United States, tliat tlie "Alabama claims" should 
 be (h'alt with by the ni,i>h (/ommission, it was in tlie full eonli(U»nee 
 tliat the i>hias(' "Alabama claims" was used l)y the United ^States (lov- 
 evnment in the same sense as it had been used thi'ouijhout the jji-evious 
 <'(H'resj)ondeuce a'wl in the (Conventions si<fned 1)y Lord Stanh^ViHid FiOrd 
 Clarendon. 
 
 National claims of an indirect eharaetei', smrh as those referred to in 
 Mr. Fish's dispatch, could not be comi)rehendcd un<h'r the term '• claims 
 iicnerically known as the Alaliama claims." The possibility of a<lmit- 
 tinp,' as a subject of ne<>otiatiou any claim for indirect national losses has 
 never been entertained in this country: and it was therefore without 
 the slij>htest doubt as to such claims beinj»- inadmissible that the Iiritish 
 Ilij^h Commissioners were appointed and proceeded to VVashinjjton. 
 
 At a meetinjj: of the iiritish and United States IJi^ih Comnnssioners 
 on the Sth of Man^h, the latter, after a general statement of th<^ claims 
 of the United States, proceeded to say that, in the liopes of an amicable 
 settlement, no estimate was made of indirect losses, without prejudice, 
 however, to the right of indemnitication on their account, in the event of 
 no such settlement being made; and they afterwartl pronn^l, by di- 
 rection of the President, tliat " the Joint High ('oinmission lould agree 
 upon a sum which should be paid by (heat Ihitain to the United States, 
 in satisfaction of all the claims and the interest thereon." 
 
 Mr. Fish says that the President earnestly hoped that the delibera- 
 tions of the Commission would have resulted in an ac<'eptance by Her 
 .Majesty's Government of this proposition. 
 
 iler Majesty's (lovernment cannot understand u[ton what this hope 
 was founded. 
 
 The ])osition which the Coverninent of this country have maintaine<l 
 througiu)ut all the lu'gotiations has been that they were guilty of no 
 negligence in respect of the escape of the Alabama, and the other ves 
 sels, and have therefore incurred no liability tor anyiiayment, and they 
 still maintain this position. 
 
 The ()nly grouiul on which Ilei- JMajesty's (JovernnuMit could be asked 
 to pay any sum would have been an admission on their part that there 
 had been siu'h negligence as rendered them Justly liable to pay a. sum 
 in compensation. This would liave been an ab.solute surreiuler of the 
 position which has always been held by this country, and a confession, 
 which could never have been expected IVom them, (hat they had been 
 guilty of iM'gligence. 
 
 Her ]Ma.jesty:s Hi;., i ('onunissioners, therelbre, could oidy declare! at 
 once that a i>roposai of an "amieabh' settlement" in this parti(,'ulav 
 Ibrm could not be entertained, and Iler Majesty's High Commissi<,ners,oii 
 the part of tids country, inunediately macU- a counter proposal, naneiy. 
 tM( proposal of arbitration, and this projiosal, after being t(» a certaii; 
 ( Xicnt modified on the suggestion of the United Sl^ates Iligli Cominis 
 sioners, was accejited by them. 
 
 The modifieation suggested by the United States High ( loiiunissiouers. 
 and acee])ted by those of Creat Ib'itain, was a concession of no slight 
 importance (ui the part of this countr\, namely, tnat the principles 
 which should govern the .Vrbitrat(ns in the consideration of the facts 
 shoidd be tirst agreed u])on ; and this concession was very materially 
 enhanced when, in order to strengthen tln^ frieuilly relations between 
 the two (vtantries and maice sal isfartory provision lor tlie future, they 
 
COKRE.SrONDENCE RKSPEOTING GENEVA AKBITL'ATION. 
 
 15 
 
 the Alabtunsv 
 
 what this hope 
 
 I'liither iijjToed that these piiiiciph's slumld bo those eontaiiied in the 
 Kuk'S ill the Vlth Ai'tieh> of the Treaty; for they thus iieeepted the 
 retroac.five etfeot of rules to whicli, nevertheless. th(>y felt boiiiul to tle- 
 (ilare that they could not 'isseut as a statement of priiieiples of iiitcrna- 
 tional law in force at the time when the "Alabama (claims" arose. 
 
 The friendly spirit of Jler Majesty's (Jovernment: was further si. mvii 
 by tiieir aii.tlioriziii;>' Ilcr Majesty's Ili<ih (Jomniis^ioners to express tht^ 
 refi'rct felt by Her Majesty's (lovernment lor the escajx'. under whatevei- 
 circumstaiiees, of the .Vlabama and the other vessels from Ibitish [)orts, 
 and I'or the «le|)redations committed by those vessels, and by tiieir ayree- 
 injjf that this expression of rejjret should bo foruiallv recoided in the 
 Treaty. 
 
 Xor did Her Majesty's ("iovernmentobJe."t to the introduction of (;laims 
 for tiie ex))ense of the i»iirsuit and cai>ture of the Alabama and otlu'r 
 vessels, iiotwithstandinj;' the doubt how far those claims, thou.i;h men- 
 tioned during the conferences as direct claims, can e within the proper 
 scope of the arbitration. They acquiesced in the proposal to exc^ludc 
 from the nejjotiations their :''aims on behalf of Canada ajjainst the 
 United States for injuries suUered from Fenian raids — an actjuiescenee 
 which was due partly to a desire on their part to act in a spirit of con- 
 ciliation, and partly to the fact, stated by Her Majesty's Jlijih Commis- 
 sioners, that a portion of these claims was of a. constructive and infer- 
 ential character. 
 
 The importance of these concessions must not b(^ underrated. Nor 
 (!an it have been expecte<l by the Government of the United States that 
 concessions of this importance would have been made by this country 
 if the United States were still to be at liberty to insist upon all the ex- 
 treme demands which they had at any time suggested or brought for- 
 ward. 
 
 Her ^Eajesty's (iovernment (!onsidered themselves Justified in treating 
 the waiver of indirect claims, in the event of an amicable settlement, 
 proffered by the High Connnissionersof the United States, as one which 
 applied to any form of amicable settlement, and therefore comprised, in 
 r.ke manner, the form of amical)lo settlement propo;;c;l by the British 
 High Commissioners, accepted on the part of the United States, and 
 recognized in the preamble of the Treaty. 
 
 Such a waiver was, in fact, a necessary comlition of the siu'cess of tlie 
 negotiation. 
 
 it \tas in the lull belief that this waiver had been made that the 
 Ibitish (iovernment ratified the Treaty. 
 
 Her Majesty's (lOvernment are anxious that the considerations which 
 made them hold this belief should be more fully explained to the (Jov- 
 ermiieiit of the United States than can be done in the Ibrm of a letter, 
 and I have accordingly embodied them in a Memorandum, which I have 
 the honour to inclose, and which I beg may be read with and considered 
 iis part of my pieseiit communication. 
 
 Her Majesty's (iovernment do not deny that it is as com])etent f(»r tli(* 
 (iov«>rnmeiit (f the I 'nited States as it is tor themselves to asseit that 
 I heir own inlerj)retat ion of the Treaty is the correct (Uie. lUitwIiat I lei 
 .Majesty's Government maintain is, that the iiatuial and gramnuUica! 
 conslrnctMHi of the language used in the Treaty ami I'l'otoeols is in ac- 
 eordanee with the \ iews which they enteitain, and sust lins their asser- 
 lion that the terms ol" reference to the Aii»ilrators an^ limited to direct 
 claims, inasmuch as direct claims only liaxc tlironghout the correspwiid- 
 <'iice been recogni/ed and reiieatetlly defined under the name of the 
 eAlabama claims." 
 
 ■m 
 ■ m 
 
16 
 
 COKRESl'ONDENCC RESPKCTING GENEVA ARIUTRATION. 
 
 I 
 
 |i 1. 
 
 
 h'S 
 
 I-:. ■; 
 
 •■■• : . 
 
 I-' 
 
 ti''-. 
 
 Th(n"(> avo soiiu; passaj-os in ^fr. Fish's (li.s[)atdi in wliidi lie (IoAmhIs 
 t' e iiitiodnctioii iiitotlic .Vmoricaii Casoof tlie (claims for iiidircitt losses 
 and injuiios, wliicli I cannot allow to pa ^s witliont more spc'(;ial riMnark. 
 
 It is stated that they are put for*' ard in the Case, not as claims for 
 Avhich a speeillc demand is made, he^ as h)sses and injuries consequent 
 upon the acits complained of, and necessarily to he taken into e(piitahle 
 c(»nsideration in a linal settlement of all ditferences Vu'tween tlie two 
 countries, and as not reliufpiislicd in the Treaty, hut covered hy one of 
 it 4 two alternatives. 
 
 Her Majesty's Government do not perceive what "alternative" in the 
 Treaty can <;over these claims. 
 
 If, indeed, hy this l!in.i';ua<;e IMr. h'ish is to he understood as referring' 
 to the two dilferent nH)des provided l>y Arti<!les VII and X of the Treaty, 
 for arrivin.^' at the amount of tlu^ jtayment to he made hy Great Britain 
 in the eventof any liahility heini>' estahlished, the answer seems ohvious, 
 viz, that these alternatives arc applieahle oidy to the settlement of the 
 amount of diima.u'es, and not to tiie measure of liahility. 
 
 Aj];'ain, i\Ir. I'lsli states that the Treaty was not an amieahle settle- 
 ment, but only an a,ureenuMit between the Governments as to the mode 
 of reachin.u' a settlement, anil that no protfer of witliholdin,<>an estimate 
 of indirect losses can he claimed as a waiver until the result of the arbi- 
 tration is arrived at; but he overlooks the fact that the Treaty is called 
 an amicable settlement, not merely in relation to the "Alabama claims,"' 
 but as an entirety ; aiul even in n^lation to the "Alabama claims" alone, 
 it must clearly be taken that the ami(!able settlenuMit which it professed 
 to i)rovide was arrived at from the nunnent when the Treaty contaiinng 
 the agreement to }^o to arbitration upon the claims was sifjned ami rati- 
 fied. If, accordin;i4" to ^Ir. Fish's view, an amicable settlement after a 
 reference to arbitration can only be arrived at by an adjudication of the 
 claims, it is obvious that no waiver of any such (daims could, under such 
 i'ireumstances, ever be made, for before the time for waiver (on this 
 sui»position) had arrived the claims would already have been decided 
 upon. 
 
 That Iler IMajesty's (iovernment never intended to refer these claims 
 to arbitration, and that in ratifyinj>' tiie Treaty they never contemplated 
 their beiiifj; revived in the ar<;umeiit before the Arbitrators, must have 
 been obvious to you from the lanfj;'iia;4e used in the debate in the House 
 of Lords on the IDtli of .June, on the motion for an address to the 
 Qneen, jmiyinji' Her ^lajesty to refuse to ratify the Treaty. 
 
 On that occasion I distinctly stated this to bo the nnderstandiuf;' el' 
 Her ^Lajesty's ( Jovernmeiit, and quoted the vi-ry ]'roto(!ol of the 4tli of 
 May, to wliiidi I have referred above, as a proof that these indirei t 
 claims had " entirely disapi)eared." When Lord Cairns, to whose speech 
 allusion has been made in the CniiCfl States Case, subsequently said 
 that extrava,yant claims ini,nht be put in and take their chance, he was 
 jnet with ex])ressions of dissent. .Moreover, Lord Derby, while (aiticiziiiin 
 the ne<.votiation and the terms ol" the Treaty in other respects, partieu- 
 larizeil the withdrawal of indirect claims. "The only cone(>ssion,'' lu' 
 said, "of which 1 can set any trace upon th(> American side is the with 
 <lrawal of that utterly lu'ejiosterous demand that we should be held re- 
 sponsible for the ]»reniatui'e recognition ol' the South as a bellij>'ereiii 
 power, in c()mi)any with that e(pially wild ima.ijination, wliiidi, I believe, 
 never extended beyond the minds of two or three si)eakers in Conii'rcss. 
 of makiii,ii," us liabh' for all tlie eons!i'ii''iiv" daina.ij'es to trade and navi.u'ii- 
 tion whieii may be pro\ ed oriuipposed to have arisen from our attitude 
 durinu' the war." 
 
 I ohse 
 ion, am 
 present < 
 ommun 
 ^our Go 
 Sir S. 
 H^e subst 
 id as ill 
 lid he to 
 lent, 
 le ratili( 
 >u call 
 laced oi 
 i(\ Gove 
 0rnment 
 0halien^ 
 f tates. 
 J Her 31 
 Understai 
 *ry last c 
 i Mr. Fis 
 K'eu put 
 [ublic lav 
 lelinitelv 
 Her Mi 
 H'est of b 
 the jK)i 
 litely sett 
 |y the Ku 
 lat it woi 
 if neutral 
 Were to be 
 Whatev 
 Treaty, it i 
 ft'(»iu the J 
 tlie Arbiti 
 any neutrii 
 act or omii 
 Tiie IJni 
 Treaty to i 
 They ha 
 knowled<4-e 
 tliem. Coi 
 pi'i ,n)sal w 
 Stfid, in soil 
 ; Her 3Ia| 
 llliiy, nor 
 Aiv the 
 pared to in 
 tiie expen.*^ 
 agvs. if, wli 
 permitted I 
 Bales thro 
 Ofiicers '. 
 
 To attaci 
 <tf lieiitrali 
 2 (i 
 
UTRATION. 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 17 
 
 wliidi lie (lofiMids 
 for iiuliivct losses 
 ro spociiil iHMnavk. 
 , not as claims for 
 ijurics conseqiiont 
 ken into e(inital)l('. 
 1 lu'twcen the two 
 covered by one ot 
 
 ilternative" in the 
 
 •stood as I'i'ferrins 
 (IX of the Treaty. 
 ^ by Great Britain 
 ver seems obvious, 
 
 settlement of the 
 ity. 
 
 in amieable settlc- 
 its as to the mode 
 oldingan estimate 
 ; result of tin; arbi- 
 he Treaty is (ialled 
 "Alalmma claims," 
 aum claims" alone. 
 : which it professed 
 Treaty contaiuinj;' 
 as sifj'ued and rati- 
 settlement after a 
 id judication of the 
 
 could, under sucli 
 waiver (on this 
 
 ixvo been decided 
 
 refer those claims 
 ever contemplated 
 trators, must have 
 'bate in the House 
 address to the 
 eaty. 
 
 understandin,i>' of 
 tocol of the 4th of 
 at these indireet 
 s, to whose speech 
 subsequently said 
 Mr chance, lie was 
 y, while criticizing^ 
 
 respects, particu- 
 y con(;ession," hv 
 
 1 side is the witii- 
 should be held re- 
 h as a belliji;er(>nr 
 1, which, 1 believe, 
 ikers in Conjiress. 
 
 trade and navi.ii'n- 
 
 from our attitude 
 
 I observed that you were i)resent in the House of Lords on that occa- 
 ion, and .vou informed me, on the Kith of December, that you were 
 present during; the speeches of Lord Itussell and myself, and that you 
 )mmunicated the next day the full lunvspaper report of the debate to 
 kour (lovernmen.t. 
 Sir S. Northcote, in the House of Commons, repeated, in other words, 
 le substance of my remarks on the limitation of the terms of reference ; 
 i^d as ins spee(!h is printed in the papers on Foreign Relations, recently 
 Ipiid before Congress, it nuist also have been report«'d to your Clovern- 
 lent. lint neither on the occasion of my speech, nor of his, nor when 
 le ratilications of the Treaty were (^changed on the 17th of June, did 
 )u call my attention to the fact tiiat a ditferent interi)retation was 
 laced on the Treaty and Protocol by Her ^Lijesty's Governnient and 
 (lovcrnmentot' the United States; nor, solar as Her Majesty's Gov- 
 ernment are aware, was their interjiretation thus i)ublicly expressed 
 Challenged either by the statesmen or the i)ublic press of the United 
 tates. 
 
 Iler [Majesty's GovcrnnuMit must therefore confess their inability to 
 understand how the intimation contained in my note of the lid of Febru- 
 j|ry last can have been re(;eived by the President with surprise. 
 
 Mr. Fish urges that the claims for national indirect losses which have 
 l^een put forward on behalf of his (lovernment involve questions of 
 
 Jublic law which the interest of l)otli Govennuents requires should be 
 efinitely settled, 
 il'jr 3Iajesty's Government agree with Mi\ Fish that it is for the iu- 
 fprest of both coiuitries that the rights and duties of neutrals upon some 
 <ff tiie points hitherto thought open to serious (!ontroversy should be deti- 
 Bitely settled, and had hoped tliat such a settlement had been secured 
 %y the llules to which they have given their assent ; but they cannot see 
 at it would be advantageous to either country to render the obligations 
 i' neutrality so onerous as they would become if claims of this nature 
 ere to be treated as proper subjects of international arbitration. 
 £ Whatever construction may be placed upon the 1st Article of the 
 reaty, it is inq)ossible to sever the terms ot reference therein (contained 
 om the Jiules in the Vltii Article; and the measure of liability under 
 e Arbitration, therefore, will be the nu'asure of liability incurred by 
 ^|ii,v neutral State which, after acceding to these Kules, may, "by any 
 ^ct or omission,*' fail to fulliil any of the duties set forth in them. 
 ;', The United States and Great IJritain have bound themselves by the 
 l^reaty to observe these llules as between themselves in future. 
 I They have, moreover, bound themselves to bring these llules to the 
 lowledge of other niaritime [)owers, and to invite them to accede to 
 em. Could it have been expected that those i)owers would accept a 
 (.,)osal which might entail upon a neutral such an unlinuted liabilit}' 
 id, in some instances, might involve the ruin of a whole country? 
 Her 3IaJesry's Government cannot fiu- themselves accept such a lia- 
 lUliiy, nor recommend the accei)tance of it to other nations. 
 I Are the Government and people of the United States themselves pre- 
 red to undertake the obligation of i»aying to an aggrieved belligerent 
 e exi)enses of the i)rolongation of the war and other indirect dam- 
 es, if, when the United States are neutral, they can be shown to have 
 rniitted the infringement of any one, or part of any one, of the three 
 Biiles througii a want of due diligence on the [»,irt of their executive 
 Onlcers .' 
 
 \; To attach such tremendous consequences to an unintentional violation 
 licutrality — it might be by a single act of negligence — would be to 
 
 : 2 G A 
 
I 
 
 ^ 
 
 -I 
 
 I. •: i 
 
 ■■/! ■ 
 
 !■■ » 
 
 
 .^1 
 
 
 ^Jr 
 
 I 
 
 ■"i 
 
 
 IS 
 
 C0R11K8P0NDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 strike a lieavy blow at the interests of i)ence; for war bas scarcely aiiv 
 coiis('(|iiences more formidable to a belli{;ereiit than those which mijiht 
 thus be incurred by a neutral; and, while war otters a chance of gain, 
 neutrality would, if such claims as these were once admitted, present 
 without any such compensation the risk of intolerable loss. 
 
 With respect to the disclaiiner made by Mr. Fish of any exiieetatioii 
 or wish, on the part of the United States (iovernment, to obtain any 
 " unreasonable pecuniary compensation " on account of these indirect 
 claims, I thiidc it sutiicient here to observe that, on the (piestion of 
 amount, the British iieople and Government have necessarily been 
 obliged to look to the nature and grounds of the claims as they are stated 
 in the Case of the United States, and have, of course, been unable to 
 form a judgment from any other <J(ita of the exi»ectations of those by 
 whom tlie clain)s are advanced. If these claims could be coirsidcred as 
 well grounded in principle, it appears to Her ]\rajest.v's Government to 
 be capable of demonstration that the magnitude of the danuiges which 
 might be the result of their admission is enormous. The grounds of 
 these views are more fully stated in the Tliird Part of the inclosed 
 Memorandum. 
 
 Mr. Fish has appealed to the proceedings at the Washington Claims 
 Commission in connection with the Confederate cotton claims, llci 
 Majesty's Government must, however, observe that there is no analogy 
 between the two cases, as, by the Treaty, the Washington Commission 
 has power "to decide in each case whether any claim has or ha.s not 
 been duly made, preferred, and laid before them, either wholly, or to 
 any and what extent, according to the true intent and meaning of the 
 Treaty;" no similar words being used as to the powers of the Geneva 
 Tribunal. 
 
 It is the function of the Washington Commission to decide upon a va 
 rietyof general claims, not of one kind, nor limited or defined beforehand, 
 and Her IMajesty's Agent was instructed that his duty would prima Jack 
 be to present such claims as private individuals might tender for that 
 puipose for acceptance or rejection by the Commission, Her Majesty's 
 Government not intending to make themselves responsible either for 
 the merits of the particular claims or for the arguments by which tliev 
 might be supported. Tiiejurisdifition of the Geneva Tribunal was liiii 
 ited to one particular class and description of claims. 
 
 The facts are as follows : 
 
 On the 11th of November, in pursuance of the general instructioii> 
 which had been given to Her Majesty's Agent, a claim upon a bond 
 issued by the so-called Confederate States for a sum forming part of a 
 loan called the "Cotton Loan," contractted by those States, and for the 
 paymentof which certain cotton seized by the United States was alleged 
 to have been hypothecated by the Confederate (Government, was tiled at 
 Washington; and on the 21st I learnt from you that the United Statt'> 
 Government objected to claims of this kind being even i)resented. 
 
 Some delay took place in consecpience of unavoidable causes, witl 
 some of which you are well accpiainted. And there were others, sinl 
 as the necessity notonly of conimunicating with my colleagues, but witl 
 Sir Fdward Thornton, and of (considering how far, uiuler the same genenL 
 descrii)tioii, there might be included claims substantially ditt'erent. Tin 
 despatches from Her Majesty's Agent giving the details of the nature o: 
 the claims, and of the demurrer made to it by the United States Agent. 
 did not reach me until the Otli of December. 1 had, in the meantime, ascci 
 tained from Sir Edward Thornton that the expression "acts committed" 
 had been used by mutual agreement in the negotiations which precedcii 
 
 I 
 
 le ai)po 
 this c 
 lords b( 
 private c 
 lext me( 
 )rded ii 
 bderat'.' 
 )nils e 
 r<n)erty 
 Mit to "tl 
 .•\[r. Fi 
 ly clain 
 Altliou 
 ctendei 
 
 le xrv 
 
 lu'tlier 
 lu' Treat 
 ftie Claim 
 tlie const 
 (liat umh 
 » 3[r. Fis 
 ifrere guii 
 
 tut the m 
 11 ited St 
 ^ Informix 
 
 Sition, wh 
 poll the 
 reconsidei 
 tail of the 
 rith Mr. 
 [aiiifestly 
 hen Her 
 lass that 
 lent to til 
 id >rr. F 
 Her Mai 
 Of the Cai 
 acter hav( 
 jquiesce 
 ^11 eases 
 )vernnie 
 'I have ri 
 df the Uni 
 t/t Her Mil 
 losses are 
 iutended t 
 j^blicly d( 
 Biave been 
 jible scope 
 them for ( 
 |i*irnicious 
 ]^ace of tl 
 "^l ai»pre( 
 (J'overninei 
 hkve i)roiii 
 Ooverumei 
 
IBITRATION. 
 
 i\v has scarcely any 
 those which inijilit 
 s a chance of gain, 
 s admitted, present 
 le loss. 
 
 of any exi)ectatioii 
 lent, to ot)tain any 
 lit of these indirect 
 on the qnestion of 
 e necessiirily been 
 IS as they are stated 
 rse, been unable to 
 tations of those by 
 lid be eoirsidered as 
 it,v's Government td 
 tiie damages which 
 IS. The grounds ot 
 irt of the inclosed 
 
 Washington Claims 
 lotton claims. Ilci 
 there is no analo^M 
 ington Commission 
 laim has or ha.s not 
 either wholly, or to 
 md meaning of the 
 iwers of the Geneva 
 
 to decide upon a va 
 defined beforehand, 
 y would prima Jack 
 
 ght tender for that 
 sion. Her Majesty's 
 
 <l)onsible either for 
 ents by which they 
 Tribunal was liin 
 
 ;eneral instructions 
 claim upon a bond 
 \ forming part of ii 
 States, and for tlit 
 I States was alleged 
 nment, was tiled at 
 t the United Static 
 en presented, 
 idable causes, witli 
 e were others, sntl 
 (•olleagues, butwitl 
 ler thesnmegeneiii; 
 ially different. Tin 
 ails of the nature o; 
 nited States Agent. 
 
 he meantime, ascoi 
 I "acts committed" 
 
 ns which precedoii 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTINa GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 19 
 
 e appointment of the High Commission with a view to exclude claims 
 this class from tins consi(h'ration of the High (commissioner; those 
 ords being also used in the XHth Article of the Treaty with regard to 
 ivate (ilainis. The (puistiou was brought before the Cabinet at its 
 ext meeting on the llth, and was finally decided on the 14th, as re- 
 ^folded in a ndnute by Mr. Gladstone. This decision was that the Coii- 
 jfederat'.' cotton claims should not be presented uidess in the case of 
 jonds exchanged for cotton, which hail thereby become the actual 
 o[»erfy of tlie claimant, and directions were given for a desi)at(;h to be 
 nt to tliis effect, and on the 10th I informed you that you might write 
 Mr. Fish that Her Majesty's Agent would be instructed not to present 
 y claims that did not come within tlu; provisions of the Treaty. 
 Altliougii it appears that the umlei'standing need not necessarily have 
 tended beyond the rejection by the Commissioners of the claims, under 
 e XrVth Article, by which the Commissioners have power to decide 
 liether any claim is preferred within the true intent and meaning of 
 le Treaty, (as was done with various claims under a similar Article in 
 ihe Claims Convention of 1S53,) Ifer Majesty's Government acceded to 
 the construction which the United States Government had put upon 
 |hat understan<ling. 
 "* Mr. Fish will observe the feeling by which Her Majesty's Government 
 
 {ere guided in coming to tlieir decision on the 1-tth. They desired to 
 ut the most favorable construction upon any understanding which the 
 'uited States Government might have supposed to exist. 
 ^ Information reached me the next morning by telegraph of theadjudi- 
 tion, which Her Majesty's Government had not expected to take place, 
 pon the merits of the claim by the Commissioners. This reciuired a 
 reiM)nsideration of the instructions, and fresh instructions w^ere sent by the 
 ail of the23(l, and also by telegraph, to Sir Edward Thornton to arrauge 
 ith Mr. Fish that the presentation of claims which appeared to be 
 anifestly without the terms of the Treaty should be withheld, and that 
 'hen Her Majesty's Agent was of opinion that a claim belonged to a 
 |ass that ought not to be presented, it would be desirable that an agree- 
 ment to that effect should be made and signed by Sir Edward Tlnn'uton 
 lihd Mr. Fish. These instructions were communicated to Mr. Fish. 
 ?'Her Majesty's Agent has since acted in accordance with the decasion 
 <tf the Cabinet of the 14th of December. Xew claims of the like char- 
 acter have been temlered to him by parties who were unwilling to 
 tcpiiesce in the decision of the Commissioners as applicable to their 
 Ml cases, but whi(!li claims, under instructions from Her Majesty's 
 €bvernnient, have not been presented. 
 
 *^1 have now placed in your hands, for examination by the Government 
 of the United Stat(rs, a statement of the reasons which, in the opinion 
 OT Her Majesty's Government, sufticiently show that claims for indirect 
 IdlBses are not within the meaning of the Treaty, that they were nev(!r 
 ifttended to be included by Her ]\rajesty's Government ; that this was 
 '" biicly declared before the ratification, when the error, if any, might 
 ve been corrected: that such claims are wholly beyond the reason- 
 le scope of any Treaty of Arbitration whatever'; anil that to submit 
 em for decision by the Tribunal would be a measure fraught with 
 rnicious consequences to the interests of all nations and to the future 
 sace of the wiuid. 
 
 I ai)preciate the desire substantially, if indirectly, expressed by the 
 3vernnient of the United States, to be advised of' the reasons which 
 AC prompted the declaration nmde by me on behalf of Her ^Majesty's 
 jvernment on the 3d of February, no less than the friendly and cour- 
 
20 
 
 CORRKSPONDENCE RESPP:CT1N0 GENEVA ARUITRATION. 
 
 ■ 4 
 
 ■; '.r 
 
 '' 
 
 '•■■i' 
 
 ;. (|- 
 
 ■ill: 
 
 
 ■t^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 •1 
 
 
 -.■] 
 
 
 .1 
 
 
 ■.;-| 
 
 
 ■i'r 
 
 ■■'■•;i 
 
 ?'■ 
 
 
 teoiis lanj'naj'e wliich liiisbcon oinploycd by tlic United States Seeretarv 
 of State. The present h'tter is inti'iided by iler Majesty's Govenmient, 
 not as the coinineiieement of a dii)loinati<' (controversy, but as an act of 
 conipliancH' witii that most reasonjible <lesire. Tliey are. sure that tlie 
 President will be no less anxious than they are tliat tlie conduct of botli 
 Governnu'nts should eonforaj to the true nu'aniii}^ and intent of tlii- 
 insti'unient they have Jointly i'ranied and sif'ned, whether that meaniiij; 
 be drawn I'roin the authoritative documents themselves or from collateral 
 consi<lerati(>ns, or from both sources conduned. 
 
 KntertaininiL': tiiemselves no doubt of tlie sullicieiujy of the grounds 
 on which their jud;^njent proceeds, they tliiidc it the course at oiu!e most 
 respectfid and most friendly to the GovMirnment of the United States to 
 submit those grounds to tlieir impartial ai)preciation. Her Majesty's 
 Government feel con}i<lent that tliey have laid before the President 
 ample proof that the conclusion which was announced by me on the 'M 
 of February, and to which 1 need hardly say that they adhere, cannot 
 be shaken. 
 
 I have, &c., 
 
 GRANVILLE. 
 
 !'■ 
 
 [Inclosuio 2 ill No. 11$.] 
 MEMOEANDUM. 
 
 Part I. — On the waiver ot'ilaiiuH for iiidiroct losses coiitaiiieil in the llGtli Protocol. 
 
 P.VKT II. — t)ii tin; construction of tlu- Treaty. 
 
 Paht III. — On the amount of the claims for indirect lo.sses. 
 
 PAET L 
 
 On the icaiver of chiims for indirect losses contained in the SGth rrotovtil 
 
 The first Protocol of the Conferences of the Ififili (.'ommission bcjiin 
 with a recital of the powers of the British Commissioners, stating lit; 
 Majesty's purpose in their appointment to be to "discuss in a friendl) 
 spirit with Commissioners to be appointed by tlie Government of tli> 
 United States the various (piestions on which ditferences had arisen In 
 tween Great Britain and that country ," and to " treat for an agreemoi 
 as to the mode of their amieahle settlement.'^ 
 
 The Protocol of the 1th of May recounts that the American Com 
 missioners stated, on the 8tli of IMarch, " that the history of tli' 
 'Alabama,' and other cruizers which had been titted out, or armed d 
 ecpiipped, or which had received augmentation of force in Great Britai: 
 or in her Colonies, and of the operations of those vessels, showed (1)('\ 
 tensive direct losses in the capture and destruction of a large number c 
 vessels with their cargoes and in the heavy national expenditures i; 
 the pursuit of the cruizers; and (2) indirect injury in the transfer of; 
 large part of the American commercial marine to the British flag, ii 
 the enhanced payments of insurance, in the prolongation of the win 
 and in the adclition of a large sum to the cost of the war, aiul the sup 
 pression of the rebellion ; and also showed (3) that Great Britain, b 
 reason of failure iu the proper observance of her duties as a ueutrii' 
 had become justly liable for the acts of those cruisers and of their tenden 
 that the c/fn'HJ,s' for the loss aiul destruction of private property wliici 
 had thus far been presented amounted to about $14,0'.>0,00(), withoii; 
 
 I 
 
 iterest, 
 
 hich ii: 
 
 tad heel 
 
 l»rtiti('at 
 
 mieal>te 
 
 rejiulic( 
 
 ,'ent of 
 
 "The . 
 
 le Mriti 
 
 fe.s.sioii 
 
 )iiiiiiitt( 
 
 iso prnj). 
 
 tliif'h sh 
 
 }oll of (( 
 
 The J5i 
 
 Itati'iiuMi 
 
 Jity for e 
 
 he adopt 
 
 itiiicted 
 
 Ciovernni 
 
 The 
 
 )f the B 
 
 tent to si( 
 
 irifiiratio 
 
 e consi( 
 
 The.se 1 
 
 icoipora 
 
 On the 
 
 ftnd Lord 
 
 Comiui.ssi< 
 
 tlie same ! 
 
 koiiourabl 
 
 Mr. Fisl 
 
 nQissionei> 
 
 tjb- the Bri 
 
 woirers. ^ 
 
 iite the ge 
 
 British Co 
 
 kad led to 
 
 tbe api)ro\ 
 
 #)« of a c 
 
 dtonie." 
 
 Two da;5 
 a^tnlile: 
 
 " Her I 
 desirous ti 
 lietween ti 
 «^e(!tive 1 
 fter hav.i 
 id proiiei 
 t| In the vi 
 Anieri(;au i 
 the claims 
 being arri\ 
 iQ First, th 
 iilemeut no 
 
RRITRATION. 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARUITRATION. 21 
 
 Led States Socrotarv 
 jt'sty's Govern nu'iit, 
 •sy, but as an act of 
 I'.V are sure tliat tlie 
 tile conduct of both 
 'f an«l intent of tlu' 
 lether that raeaniiii! 
 esor from collateral 
 
 !Mcy of the grounds 
 course at once most 
 he United States to 
 ion. Her Majesty's 
 efore the rresideiit 
 ;ed l)y me on the .'M 
 they adhere, cannot 
 
 GEANVILLE. 
 
 iued in the IlCth Protocol 
 
 in the 3Gth Protocol 
 
 Onimission bcjiiii 
 sioners, stating lie: 
 scuss in a friendl; 
 
 Government of tin 
 enees had arisen hv 
 ■at for an agremuti 
 
 the 
 th( 
 
 cVmerican Com 
 history of tli' 
 (1 out, or armed o: 
 )rce in Great Britai: 
 ■ssels, showed (l)w 
 a large number • 
 nal expenditures i: 
 in the transfer of 
 
 the British flag, ii 
 ngatiou of the aviii 
 le war, and the siif 
 it Great Britain, b 
 uties as a ueutni' 
 and of their tendcn 
 
 ite propertv whiei 
 !14,000,000, withoii: 
 
 iterest, which amount was liable to l>e greatly increased by claiinH 
 
 Miich had not been i)resent(Ml ; that the cost to which the Go vernmen 
 
 lad been put in the pursuit of cruizei-s iiould easily be ascertained by 
 
 M'tificatesof (rovernnuMit acciouutiug olUcers ; that, in the hoi)e of an 
 
 \micnhh- settlement, no estimate "as mad(^ of tlie indirect lossi>', with.mt 
 
 'Judi(;e, however, to the rifjht to iivleninifieation on their uevoant in the 
 
 rent of no such settlement being made. 
 
 "The America II Coiniuissioners further stated that they hoped that 
 e IJritish (Jouimissioners would bo able to place upon lecord an ex- 
 cssion of regi'ct by Her Majesty's Goveriimi'iit for the depredations 
 Miinitted by the v(!ssels whose acts wiMV now under discussion. They 
 so proposeil that the .Joint High Commission shituld agree ui)ou a sum 
 liidi should b(^ ])aid by(rrcat Britain to the United States, in satisfac- 
 lioM of (ill the elaims, and the interest thereon.'''' 
 
 The IJritish Commissioners abstained "from replying in detail to the 
 tatcment of the American Commissioners, in the lioitc that the neces- 
 ity for entering upon a lengthened controversy m';.;iL he obviated by 
 h(^ adoption of so fair a mode of settlement as that which they were in- 
 itnu;te(l to propose ; and they had now to repeat, on behalf of their 
 government, the olfer of arbitration. 
 
 ''The AnuMican (Commissioners expressed their regret at this decision 
 ,0f the British Commissioners, and said further that thei/ eould not eon- 
 $eut to submit the question of the Jiahility of Her Majestjfs Gorernment to 
 Arbitration, unless the i>rinciples which should govern the Arbitrator iu 
 %ho consideration of the facts eould be Hrst agreed upon." 
 I These principles were subsefjuently dis(Missed and agreed upon, and 
 "fticorporated in the Draft of the Vlth Article of the Treaty. 
 1 On the (!th of May, the Commissioiuirs met for their linal conference, 
 ud Lord de Gray said that "it had been most gratifying to the British 
 Commissioners to be associated with colleagues who were animated with 
 ^e same sincere desire as themselves to bring about a settlement tuirnxWy 
 Iwnourable and Just to both countries." 
 
 Mr. Fish replied that " from the tirst Conference the American Com- 
 missioners had been impressed by the earnestness of desire manifested 
 Ay the British Commissioners to reach a settlement worthy of the tico 
 woivers. * * * Ills colleagues and he could never cease to ai)i)reci- 
 ii|te the generous spirit and the open and friendly manner in which the 
 British Commissioners had met and discussed the several questions that 
 lind led to the conclusion of the Treat)/, irhieh it was hoped would receive 
 tte approval of the people of both coiuitries, and would prore thefounda- 
 J^n of a cordial and friendly understanding between them for all time to 
 fitenie." 
 ! Two days afterward the Treaty was signed with the Ibllowing Pre- 
 amble: 
 
 r " Her Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, being 
 desirous to i»rovide for an amieable settlement of all causes of dilterence 
 between the two countries, have, for that purpose, appointed their re- 
 spective rienipotentiaries, * * * And the said PIenii)otentiaries, 
 «ter liav.ng exchanged their full powers, which were found to be in due 
 #1(1 i)roper form, hace (Kjreed to an<l eoneluded the following ArticleSi" 
 n In the view of Her Majesty's (rovernment the statenumt made by the 
 iluuuican Coaimissioners on the 8tli of March contained a waiver of 
 Mie claims for indirect losses contingent on an "amicable settlement" 
 being arrived at ; and this waiver consisted of two parts : 
 iy Fii'-^t, the affirmative stateuient that " in the hope of an amicable set- 
 itlemeut no estimate was made of the iudireut losses." The words " iu 
 
l- ^'^^ 
 
 2t 
 
 CORUKSPONDKXCi: RESPECTING GENEVA AKBITRATION. 
 
 tlic liopc of iin ami(;iibl<', scttloiiuMit " are in themselves <;riiiiimatieally 
 Hcneiiil, and, unless qualified by a subseciuent limitation, mean, in the 
 hope <»f any such settlement as the parties shall acknowled^'c to fall un- 
 der the jthrase '• amicable settlenuMit." Now, this part of the waiver, 
 beintr a declaration in whi(!h th«^ other party had an interest, and, so 
 far, of the nature of the promis(>, coidd only be so limited by an express 
 specilication Ibllowin;;;' it iinnu'diately, or at least before the othei' i)arty 
 had taken any step in reliance on its {general charactei-. Hut no such 
 si>eciticaMon was made; nor does any specitlcation at all as to the par- 
 ticular form of settlement appear in the Protocol. The phrase conse- 
 quently retains the j;eneial character above described us its literal and 
 gramnmtical meaning'. 
 
 It ndf^ht be said that the conclinlinj;' words of the phrase — "noestinujte 
 was made of the indirect losses" — had a special regard to th.^ form of 
 amicable settlement thereaftta' proposetl by the American Commission- 
 ers, viz, the paynu'nt of a ;iross sum. This, howevt'r, can only be main 
 tallied subject to the (|ualilication that, if the estimate of indirect losses 
 was withheld in the hope that that proposal would be accept<'d, and it' 
 the view of the American Commissioners was that the acceptance of 
 that proposal aloiu' would <'onstitute the "amicable settlenuMit," in con- 
 sideration of which the estinnite of indirect losses was withheld, then 
 the next step for them, when the ]>roposal was declined, was to present 
 that estinmte; or, if not, then in some other specific manner to keep 
 alive the claim. JJnt tliey did neither; they did not intimate or j^ive 
 notice to the JJritish Comnussioners that their hope of an "amicable 
 settlement" liad been frustrated or disai)pointed, nor did they say any- 
 tiling' to the effect of nndvinj;' this first portion of the waiver dei»endent 
 on the rejected proposal. And thus the phrase "an amicable settle- 
 ment"' is left to staiul in its oriyiind and juramnuitical generality. 
 
 The second part of the waiver is as follows: 
 
 "Without prejudice, however, to the ri<>ht of indemnification on then' 
 account [/. c, on account of indirect losses] in the event of no such set- 
 tlement beinj;- made." Its i>recise beariu}^' obviously depends upon the 
 meaning' of tlie words "no such settlement." 
 
 Now the word "such" grammatically (jualifies the word "settlement" 
 by referring to the antecedent expression "amicable settlenuMit." "Such," 
 therefcn-e, means "amicable;" and the right reserved by the American 
 Commissioners is grammatically a light to revive the question of indi- 
 rect losses in the event of no amicable settlement heiny made, and is noth- 
 ing nH)re. 
 
 It is to be (d)served that at this time no proposal whatever ha<l been 
 made for i)ayment of a gross sum, or for any particular form or mode 
 of settlement. 
 
 The only rennnning question is whether the Treaty was itself "an 
 amicable settlement," or, which is the same thing lor the purposes of the 
 argument, was in ordine towards an amicable settlement, and a step on 
 the road to it. 
 
 This (piestion is answered by the preamble of the Treaty, which de 
 Clares that the I'resident of the United States had (as well as Her 
 I\lajesty) given his Commissioners (Hutain |)owers "in older to provide 
 for an amicable settlement "of certain differences, in which the "Ala- 
 bama claims" were included; that these i)owers had been coiniiared and 
 verified; and that in virtue of them the Commissioners had agreed upon 
 the Articles of the Treaty which are then set forth in order. The "ami- 
 cable settlement" is here distinctly recognized not as a particular solu- 
 tion of the pending questions which had been proposed and set asi<le, but 
 
 CO 
 
 18 an obj( 
 katisfactiii 
 In the Tre 
 nissioner." 
 md the ii 
 from th< 
 
 
 Upon t 
 Protocols, 
 
 First. \\| 
 inoirn an 
 
 Second. 
 %ehirh have 
 , Claims?''' 
 
 Third. \ 
 
 p'oHunf/ont 
 
 i,s' the '■Aial 
 
 |of the rete 
 
 .1 Each of 
 
 I 1. What 
 
 Tcnown as t 
 
 TIk^ wor 
 
 ■ ,ac(iuired a 
 
 its us(^ in p 
 
 The won 
 Were cjiisde 
 ' The wor 
 semed or 
 ulars. 
 
 The dipl( 
 therefore I 
 sented, or i 
 phrase "th 
 
 The earli 
 letter of M 
 fijioke "of 
 vessels" b; 
 Govern niei 
 proi>erty o 
 British Jur 
 to the trea 
 which (as 
 previously 
 originally 1 
 be referred 
 pensation.' 
 ernment " 
 thus sustai 
 
 On the 1 
 August, 1.': 
 
 ^ 
 
TRATION. 
 
 CORRKSPONDENCe RKSPHCTINO OKNKVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 23 
 
 s };riiiiiinati('ally 
 DM, iiK'iiii, in tlu> 
 'hMlj,'(' to fall nil- 
 ; of tlu' waivtM', 
 interest, and, so 
 mI l»y an ex|)ri'ss 
 the other party 
 lint no sueli 
 II as to the par- 
 lie pliraso ('onse- 
 ts its literal and 
 
 ;e — "no estimate 
 to tl>«' form of 
 •an Ooniniission- 
 an only be main 
 )f indireet losses 
 aeeei)ted, and it' 
 le aeeeptance of 
 tlenient," in con- 
 i withheld, then 
 1, was to present 
 manner to keep 
 ntimate or };ive 
 )f an "amicabhi 
 ilid they say any- 
 aiver dependent 
 amicable settle- 
 ;enerality. 
 
 fication on their 
 of no such set- 
 )ends upon the 
 
 :'d "settlement" 
 iu<!nt;' " Such," 
 the American 
 uestion of indi- 
 (le, and is noth- 
 
 itever had been 
 form or mode 
 
 was itself "an 
 purposes of the 
 :, and a step on 
 
 eaty, which de 
 s w-ell as ITer 
 rder to provide 
 lich the "Ala- 
 _. comi)ared and 
 ul agreed upon 
 er. The "anii- 
 l)articular solu- 
 d set aside, but 
 
 4s an object of negotiation whicdi had been provided for in a manner 
 'satisfactory to both parties, and the provision for which was «'mbodied 
 In the Treaty. Tlu' reservation, therefore, made by the Anu'rican ('(»m- 
 inssioners had not come into play; tlu^ waiver remained in full fonie ; 
 md the indirect loss(\s were excluded by the i)reaiiible of Jie Treaty 
 from the scope of ♦^'•e arbitration. 
 
 I PART ir. 
 
 * On the constrncfion of the Treaty of }Ynshhi(jtnn. 
 
 £ Upon the constru(;tion of the Treaty of Washington, apart from the 
 
 il'rotocols, tlu-re appear to be threi^ questions: 
 
 IT First, What (;laims are descril)ed by tlu; words, " the eliiims generieally 
 
 Wcno'cn (ts the '■Aldhnmn VlaUnx?'" 
 
 'f Sevoiid. What vessels are described by tin' words, ^^the ficeeraJ irssels, 
 
 hchirh have (jiren rise to the cluiins qenerieally Jinon-n ((s the •Alahdina 
 
 Thirtl. What claims are descM'ibed by the words, "a7/ the said elaims, 
 frowiiui out of acts cominilfed by the aforesaid vessels, and ffcnerienlly knoicn 
 
 ^■s the ^Al((haina Claims f^" (bein;'' the words in wiiich the subject-matter 
 
 lof the reference to arbitration ajireed upon is delined.) 
 
 1 Each of these (pu^stions will be examined sei)arately. 
 
 I 1. What claims are destiribed by the words, "the ulnimB generimUy 
 
 l^noivn as the 'Alabama Claims?'" 
 
 1 The word "known" si{>nihes that this collective expression hail 
 ■|ac(iuired a definite sense, sui)posed to be mutually understood, from 
 
 dts us(r in previous (communications, b(;tween the same pai'ties. 
 
 The word " ju'enerically " naturally signifies that all the claims intended 
 Were ejiisdeni (jeneris. 
 
 K Tlu^ word "(claims" itself naturally signifies demands actually i)re- 
 sented or notilied, either with or without a full speciticatiou of partic- 
 
 ;;Ulars. 
 
 Tiie diplomatic correspondence, which ju'cceded the negotiation, must 
 therefore be referred to, to discover, first, what demands had been pre 
 sented, or notified; and secondly, what had been the previous use of the 
 phrase "the 'Alabama Claims?'" 
 
 The earliest intimation of any claims against this country was in the 
 letter of Mr. Adams to Lord Uussell, of I'Oth Xovembiu", ISi '; which 
 fipoke "of the depredations committed on the high seas ujion merchant- 
 vessels" by the "Alabama," and of "the right of reclamation of the 
 Government of the United States for the grievcms damage done to the 
 property of their citizens," by reason of the escaiie of that vessel from 
 British Jurisdiction; and which referred, in support of that alleged right, 
 to the treaty of ITiM: between (Ireat Britain and the United States, by 
 ■which (as Mr. Adams inaccurately iej)resented) "all cases of damage 
 previously done by capture of British vesstils or merchandize, by vessels 
 originally fitted out iu the ports of the United States," were agreed to 
 he referred to a commission, to award "the lu^cessary sums for full com- 
 pensation." He added, that he had received directions from his Gov- 
 ernment "to solicit redress for the national and private injuries already 
 thus sustained." 
 
 On the 10th February, 18(J;5; L>!)th April, ISfi.l; 7th July, 18(5;}; 2 
 August, 1803; lUth September, 18(53, and 23d October, 1803, Mr. Achi 
 
 4th 
 ims 
 
■ I 
 
 f 
 
 24 
 
 CORRESPONDEXCE RKSPECTIXG GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 f , 
 
 • ■ ■ .1 
 
 If. : 
 
 . ' t*» 
 
 i 
 ( ■,••, 
 
 preseiittMl to Lord llnssell a series of defiiiite claims made a{?ainst the 
 Government of tliis country hy i»articuh;r American citizens, in respect of 
 ships and pro|»erty belonj;inj4' to them, said to liave been destroyed by 
 the "Alabama," intimating, in his letter of the 2'.k\ October, that his 
 Government "must continue to insist that Great Britain has made itself 
 res))0)>sible for the damaf/es which the peace/id, hmabiilimj citizem of tlie 
 United States smta in hy the depredations of the vessel called the ^ Alabama. ''^^ 
 He added, (in an important passage containing the first suggestion of 
 arbitration as a mode of thereafter solving tluMpu'sticm,) "In repeat- 
 ing this conclusion, however, it is not to be understood that the United 
 Htates incline to act dogmatically or in a spirit of litigistion. They fully 
 comprehen<l how unavoidably leciprocal grievances must spring up from 
 the divergence of the policy of the two countries in regard to the present 
 insurrection. * # * Poi- these reasons I am instructed to say that 
 they frankly confess themselves unwilling to regard the i)resent hour as 
 the nu)st favourable to a calm and candid examination by either i>arty of 
 the facts or the princijjles involved in (tases like the one now in (piestioii, 
 Though indulging a firm conviction of the correctness of their jmsitiou 
 in ret/ard to this and other claims, they dechm^ themselvi'S disposed at 
 all times hereafter, as well as now, to consider in the fullest manner all 
 the evidence and the argunuMits which Her IMajesty's Government may 
 incline to proffer in refutation of it; and, in case of an imiiossibility to 
 arrive at any common conclusion, 1 am directed to say there is no fair 
 and e(piitable form of convcMitiomd arbitrament or reference to whi(!h 
 they will not be willing to submit. Entertaining these views, 1 crave per- 
 mission to apprise your Lordship that I have received directions to con- 
 tinue to present to your notice claims of the character heretofore advanced, 
 whenever they arise, and to furnish the evidence on whicth they rest, as 
 is customary in such cases, in order to guard against possible ultimate 
 failure of justice from the absence of it. 
 
 In a later letter, of 3Lst October, 1S03, Mr. Adams (while i)resenting 
 other similar demands in respect of property destroyed by the " Flori- 
 da") spoke of ^'■the claim.': f/ron-iny out of the depredations of the ^Ala- 
 bama'' and other vessels issuiny from British ports' 
 
 On the 2()th January, 18(i4, he jtresented another similar claim by the 
 owners of the " Sea liride," cai)tnred by the "Alabanui." And at later 
 dates the particulars were transndtted by him of certain claims made 
 by ]>ersons Mhose property was alleged to have been destroyed by the 
 "Shenandoah.''' 
 
 On the 7th A[)rd, ISGo, (when the war was considered by him as 
 actually or virtually at an eml,) ^Ir. xVdams transmitted to Lord Kussell 
 certain reports of " dei)redatioiis committed U|)on the (tommerce of the 
 United States" by th«' "Shenandoah," and added, "were there any 
 reas»)u to believe that the oi)erations carried on in the ports of Her 
 ^Majesty's Kingdom and its dependeiu'ies to maintain and extend this 
 systematic; depredation upon tiie commerce of a friendly people had 
 been materially relaxed u prevented, I should not be under the paiul'iil 
 necessity of announcing to Your Lordship the- fact that my (iovcrnmcni 
 cannot avoid cntailiny upon the (lorernmcnt of (Sreat Britain the respon 
 silnlity for this d<(mayc,'"' and he proceeded to speak of "the injury tliat 
 might yet be impending from the part which th(> Ibitish steamer 'City 
 of Richmond' had had in being snlfei'cd to tiansport with impunity from 
 the port of London men and supplies, to place them on board of flic 
 Frein'h-i)uilt steam-ram 'Olinthe,' alias ' Stoerkoddei',' alias 'Stonewall.' 
 which had, through a continuously fraudulent juocess, succeeded in 
 deluding several Governments of Europe, and in esca])ing from this 
 
 lemispl 
 \/a comp 
 xrmamc 
 Uttribuf 
 \50mmer 
 lad alr( 
 tecognit 
 )e tlie n 
 ^f all til 
 'St her 
 jfecognit 
 |o Your 
 >n whic 
 h(^ resp 
 ^vils tha 
 bonsi(ler( 
 leretofoi 
 It is t( 
 )f the (" 
 idvance> 
 [except 1^ 
 rovernm 
 lures by 
 Jovernm 
 like natu 
 Thisle 
 »f whi(!h 
 I' never a< 
 rere to b' 
 Fnited Si 
 ^ally con 
 a resix 
 fti their p 
 ii^.daiiis. o 
 f*oringal, 
 to what tl 
 thereby a 
 have beei: 
 tay, more 
 0n board 
 ^hich Ml 
 ttiM<> ])()iir 
 
 JfUMUMltS. 
 
 •elligereii 
 been in fa 
 ]6rit.iin) 1 
 ilw ocean 
 Proprrli/ h 
 The Stli 
 ^ "S. Thi 
 built, mai 
 from the 
 States, an 
 tlnis enab 
 Taiitage fi 
 tion. 
 
 m 
 
TITRATION. 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 25 
 
 uiadp nsainst tlie 
 tizens,iii resijectof 
 lieeii (U'stroyed by 
 
 October, that his 
 a ill has inaile itneJf 
 'tliiK/ citizenH of the 
 led'ihe^ Alabama:^' 
 tirst siio'>4estioii of 
 iti(ni,) " In ropcat- 
 )d that tlie United 
 :ati<)n. They fully 
 list sprinji' up from 
 nard to the present 
 ^ructed to say that 
 he present hour as 
 I by either party ot 
 lie now in (luestion. 
 ss of their jiositioii 
 selve.'* disposed at 
 ' fullest manner all 
 s (xovernnient may 
 an inqtossibility to 
 ay there is no fair 
 reference to which 
 ( views, 1 crave per- 
 d directions tcx'oii- 
 hcretoj'o re ad ra need, 
 which they rest, as 
 t possible ultimate 
 
 (while presenting 
 
 d by the '' Floii- 
 
 tions of the ^Ahi- 
 
 unlar claim bv tlio 
 a." And at'later 
 tain claims made 
 destroyed by the 
 
 dered by him as 
 ■tl to Lord Kussell 
 
 commerce of the 
 "were there any 
 the ports of Her 
 n and extend this 
 endly people had 
 under the i»ainfid 
 at tin/ (jorenimcnt 
 'iritaia the irspon- 
 
 " the injury tiiat 
 ish steanu'r ' City 
 ith impunity from 
 1 (tu board oi' tlie 
 
 alias 'Stonewall.' 
 ess, succ<'(Mled in 
 sca]>iny from this 
 
 emisphere on its errand of mischief to the other." lie then went on 
 
 \,o complain that, by reason of a series of acts, {the/nniishinri of " rcsselti, 
 
 rmamcntK, niipi>lic.s', dud wew,") which he contemled to be almost wholly 
 
 ittributable to Great Britain, or to British citizens, the entire maritime 
 
 Bommeree of the United Stat(^s was in course of being transferred, utuI 
 
 had already, to a preat extent, passed over to (rreat Britain, whose 
 
 irecofi'nitiou of the belligerent character of the insurgents he alleged to 
 
 ibe the main and original source of all this mischief; adding, '- In view 
 
 Af all these circumstances, I am instructed, whilst insisting on the pro- 
 
 itest heretofoie solemnly entered against that i)roceeding,'' (i. r., the 
 
 Ifecognition of Southern belligerency,) "further respectfully to represent 
 
 |o Your Lordship that, in the opinion of my Government, the grounds 
 
 ibn which Her Majesty's Government have rested their defence against 
 
 %]](' responsibility inciu'red in the manner hereinbefore stated, tor the 
 
 evils that have followed, however strong they might have hitherto been 
 
 •jbousidered, have now failed, by a i)ractical reduction of all the ports 
 
 heretofore temporarily held by the insurgents." 
 
 ; It is to be observed that, although the general injury to the commerce 
 jof the L^nited States is largely referred to in this letter. Mi'. Adams 
 ■;i»dvauces lu) new claim for compensation, on that or any other account, 
 |(excei>t ibr captures made by the "Shenandoah,'') against Her M 'jesty's 
 
 WTOvernment; he even intimates that the particular claim for l lie cap- 
 tures by the " Shenandoah " would not then have been made, if his 
 government could have felt assured that no further operations of the 
 like nature would take phu-e. 
 
 • This letter led to a ]>rolonged controversial argument, in the course 
 bf which (on the 4th ^lay, 1805) Lord Kussell observed that he could 
 r never admit that the duties of (Jreat r>ritain toward the United States 
 ilv'ere to be ineasunMl by the losses which the trade and commerce of the 
 tJiiited States might have sustained,'" and said, "The (juestion, then, 
 feally (tomes to this; Is Her Majesty's (Tovernment to assume or be liable 
 |o a resiionsibility for conduct which Her Majesty's Government did all 
 % their power to iirevent and to punish? A responsibility which Mr. 
 I^^dauis. on the part of lao United States (government, in the case of 
 |*(uUigal, i»ositively, firndy, and Justly <leclined. Have you considered 
 lo what tills responsibility would anu)unt? Great Britain would become 
 thereby answerable for every ship that may have lei't a British port and 
 liave been found afterwards used by the Confederates as a ship of war; 
 iay, nunc, for every (iannon ami every musket used by the Confedei'ates 
 §n board any ship of war, if maiuifactnred in a British workshop." To 
 fliicli Mr. Adams reidied (LM>th May, l.S(5.")) by a "recapitulation'' of 
 i|ine points, wiiich he said he had desired to end)ody in his pi-evious ar- 
 
 EiMUMits. These jioints (beginning with the recognition of Southern 
 'lligereiicy on the high seas, ami alleging this i)elligerency to have 
 been in fact created, after the re(!ognition, by nu'ans derived from Great 
 Britain) mentioned, under the 7th ]n'iu\,^^fhc hiiniinif and desfroiiiu;/ on 
 the orriDi a larficjiurnhn- <f merchant ressels and a eery large amount of 
 properti/ helontjinii to the people >f the United Staten.'''' 
 
 * The Sth ami !»th heads we"e thus worded: 
 
 i"S. That, in addition to this direct injury, the action of these P.ritish 
 uilt, manned, and arnu'd vessels has had the indirect elfect of diiving 
 •om the sea a large poition of the ('(unmerciid marine of the I'nited 
 States, and, to a corn'sponding extent, enlarging that of Great ibitatn, 
 jBius enabling one jmrtion of the British i)eop!e to derive an unjust ad- 
 irantage from the wrong committed on a friemlly nation by another pov- 
 lion. 
 
' 
 
 26 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 :u':i ■ , 
 
 y 
 
 
 ■ ♦ ■ 
 
 I. 
 
 "9. That the injuries thus received by a country wliich has, meanwhile, 
 sedulonsly endeavored to perform all its oblij^ations, owing to the iin- 
 perfe<!tion of the legal means at hand to prevent them, as well as the 
 unwillingness to seek for more stringent powers, are of so ffravea nature 
 as in reason and Justice to constitute a ralid claim for reparation and in- 
 demnificationy Later on, in the same letter, Mr. Adams also said: 
 " Your Lordship is pleased to observe that you can never admit that the 
 duties of Great Britain toward the United States are to be measured by 
 the losses which tlie trade aiul comnun'ce of the United States may havi; 
 sustained. To which I would ask permission to reply, that no such rule 
 was ever desired. The true standard for the measurement would seem to 
 be frauu'd on the basis of the clear obligations themselves, and the losses 
 that spring from the ini])erfect performance of them;" and "thus it is 
 that, whatever may be the li. e of argument 1 pursue, I am comi)elle(l 
 ever to return to the one conclusion: the nation that recognized a Power 
 as a iiellif/erent he/ore it had 1>uilt a ressei, and became itself the .sole source 
 of all the hell if/erent character it has ever possessed on the ocean, must be re- 
 garded as responsihle for all the damage that has ensued f\,,n that cause to 
 the commerce of a Power with which it was under the most sacred of ob- 
 ligations to preserve amity and peace.'' 
 
 It will be seen that, although the general propositions of this letter 
 might be wide enougii to include the largest imaginable demands, it 
 nevertheless abstains from putting forward any new claim in a delinite 
 or tangible form ; and purports rather to recapitulate and adhere to 
 the tenor of the preceding correspondence. And in this sense it was, 
 evidently, un<lerstood by Lord Kussell, who, in his answer of 3()tli 
 August, 18(55, leferred to the suggestion of an arbitration contained iu 
 Mr. Adams's former letter of the 23d of October, 1803; and, while de- 
 clining " either to make reparation and compensation for the captures made 
 by the 'Alabama,'' or to refer the <iuestion to any foreign State," ottered a 
 reference to a Commission of " all claims arising during the late civil 
 war," whi(!h the two Powers should agree to refer to tlie Commission- 
 ers. And again, on tiie 14th October, he repeated : "There are, I con- 
 ceive, many claims upon which the two Powers would agree that they 
 were fair subjects of investigation before Couunissioners. But I think 
 you must per(!eive thnt if the United States Government were to propose to 
 refer claims arising out of the captures made % the '■Alabama'' and ' IShen- 
 andoah^ to the Commissioners, the answer of Her ]\LiJesty's Govern- 
 ment must be in consistency with the whole argunuuit I have main- 
 tained, in conformity with tlie views entertained by your Government 
 iu former times. I shonld be tddiged, in answer to such a proposal, to 
 say : For any acts of Her Majesty's subjects (joininitted out of their juris- 
 diction and beyond their control, the Government of Her Majesty iiic 
 not responsible," &c. 
 
 On tile 2Istof October ^{r. Adams addressed a long letter, with numer 
 ous incilosures, to Lord Itussell, with reference to the "Shenandoiili,'' 
 alleging that vessel to have been received by the authorities at Mel 
 bourne with knowledge of an illegal e((uipment in this country; and 
 insisting that, on that account, JFer .]r(i}estifs Government assumed a re- 
 sponsihilifg for all the damage which it hivl done, and wlii(tli, down to tin' 
 latest a(!('()unts, it was still (loing, to tlie peiUM'ful coiiiiuenu^ of the United 
 States on the o(!(»an." A piirti<!ular clnim l>y the, owners of a ship ciiu- 
 tured by tlie " SlKMiinidoali," was presented v.'ith this letter. 
 
 In his letter to Lord Clarendon of the lilst November, LSti."), Mr, 
 Adiims, under the instructions of his Government, declined Lord Bus 
 sell's projntsal for a limited reference to Coiunilssiouers of such claims ;i> 
 
 it 
 
 the tw( 
 ■jfeovern 
 Itordsli 
 Just an 
 ^r furt 
 ■• The 
 ipainistr 
 . 1. Ti 
 |ange o 
 rn Stal 
 |ned, fc 
 or the 
 lieir ve 
 |oah ;" 
 lad eve 
 |pect o 
 ,lidelin_ 
 Interest 
 :;; On th( 
 |o :\Ir. A 
 frhich it 
 t|ng corrf 
 
 fi urge t 
 f eitizem 
 ijfered b 
 jereafte 
 pitted on 
 ii^henand 
 0quii>ped 
 l|v throuj 
 "Jieltered 
 levastati 
 nearly 
 ^(t it pre 
 if^ived in t 
 hereafter. 
 yourself, 
 #iiment, 
 l^l)eal wji 
 flrati; dis< 
 4|)iiit Cla 
 aa»y form 
 we time i 
 l;^en, and 
 WvernnK 
 MisptMid f 
 Biitain, { 
 afose diiri 
 subside a 
 ^vonrabli 
 ^e claims 
 We asserl 
 an ('labor; 
 this respt' 
 paitment. 
 mttentiono^ 
 
 s 
 
n 
 
 BITRATION. 
 
 ch has, meanwhile, 
 s, owing to the iiii- 
 lein, as well as the 
 of so grave a nature 
 ■ reparation and in- 
 Adams also said: 
 ever admit that the 
 
 to be measured hy 
 h\ States may hav« 
 :, that no such rule 
 nent would seem to 
 'Ives, and the losses 
 tu;" and "thus it is 
 le, I am eouipelled 
 
 recognized a Power 
 itself the sole souree 
 he ocean, must be re- 
 dfruiii that cause to 
 s most saered of ob- 
 
 itions of this letter 
 inable demands, it 
 ' claim in a delinite 
 late and adhere to 
 I this sense it was, 
 his answer of 3()tli 
 ration contained iu 
 803 ; and, while de- 
 or the captures made 
 ign State," ottered a 
 iring the late civil 
 tlie Commission- 
 There are, I con- 
 I a<>Tee that they 
 ners. But I think 
 t icere to propose to 
 tbaina ' and ' IShcn- 
 ]\[ajesty's Govern- 
 ment I liave main- 
 your Government 
 such a proposal, to 
 out of their juris- 
 Her Majesty aro 
 
 etter, with numer 
 le "Shenamloali," 
 inthorities at Mel 
 this country ; and 
 inenf assumed a re- 
 U'wh, down to till' 
 i.erci^ of the Uniteil 
 UM's of a sliii* c;U)- 
 letter. 
 veniber, 180r>, .Afi'. 
 t'clini'd Lord ilns 
 ■s of such claims as 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 27 
 
 *the two Governments could agree upon. "Adhering," he says, " as my 
 ipovernment does to the opinion that the claims it has presented, which His 
 jordship has thought nt at the outset to exclude from consideration, are 
 ^ist and reasoiuii)le, I am instructed to say that it sees now no ocu^asion 
 )r further delay in giving a full answer to His Lordship's propositions." 
 The whole result of this correspondence, down to the change of Ad- 
 ipinistration in this country in 18(J0, may be thus summed up : 
 ■4. 1. That notwithstanding continual complaints, extending over a vast 
 inge of subjects, from the recognition of the belligerency of the South- 
 rn States downwards, no " claims" against this country were ever de- 
 nned, formulated, or presented on the part of che United States, except 
 )r the specittc losses of American citizen.-, arising from the capture of 
 leir vessels and property by the "Alabama," "Florida," and " Shenan- 
 loah ;" and (2) that no such form of expression as '■^ the Alabama claims^'' 
 jad ever, down to this time, been used to describe even the claims in re- 
 |l)ect of those ca[)tures, much less to comprehend any more vague and 
 lulelinito demands of indemnity to the general mercantile or national 
 iterests of the United States. 
 
 On the accession of Lord Derby to power, Mr, Seward in a despatch 
 .Mr. Adams, dated the L'Tth August, 18GG, thus delined the "claims" 
 Inch it had been the object of the United States to press in the preced- 
 correspondence, and of which he now again instructed Mr. Adams, 
 I urge the settlement : " You will herewith receive a summary of claims ' 
 'citizens of the United States against Great Britain for damages which were 
 Itffered by them during the period of our late civil war and some months 
 ^lereafter, by means of depredations upon our commercial marine, com- 
 litfedon the high seas by the ^ Sumter,^ the ^Alabama,'' the '^ Florida,'' the 
 Shenandoah,'' and other ships of war, which were built, manned, armed, 
 iuii)ped, and fitted out in British ports, and despatched therefrom by 
 jji- through the agency of Britivsh subjects, and which were harboured, 
 leltered, provided, and furnished, as occasion reipiired, during their 
 ivastating career, iu i)orts of the realui, or in ports of British Colonies 
 nearly all parts of tiie globe. The table is not supposed to he complete, 
 ^it it presents such a recapitulation of the claims as the evidence so far re- 
 vived in this Department enables me to' furnish. Dejicieneies will be supplied 
 jreafter. Most of the claims have been from time to time brought by 
 3|ourself, as the I'resident directed, to the notice of Her Majesty's Gov- 
 ^pnimwit, and made the subject of earnest and continued ajipeal. That 
 ~ni)eal was intermitted only when Her Majesty's Government, after elab- 
 ate discussions, refused either to allow the claims or to refer them to a 
 )int Claims Commission, or to subniit the (inestion of liability therein to 
 ly form of arbitration. The United States, on the other hand, have all 
 le tiuu^ insisted upon the claims as just and valid. Tiiis attitude has 
 l;Ken, and doubtlessly continues to be," well understood by Her Majesty's 
 «overnineut. The considerations which inclined this Government to 
 SnsjuMid for a time the pressure of the claims upon the attention of Great 
 !%-itain, are these: The political excitement in Great Britain, which 
 l||ose during the progress of the war, and which did not immediately 
 "^'ibside at its conclusion, seemed to render that period sonu-what uil- 
 ^vourablc to a deliberate examination o<" the very grave i|uestions whiith 
 \e claims involve, &.c. * * Tln^ princi[)le's iipon which the claims 
 re asserted by the United States have bee. exi»lained bv vonrself in 
 Kb elaborate correspondence with Karl Kussell and Liu'd Clarendon. In 
 tpis respect, then seems to be no de(ici«'n(!v to be supplied by tliis De- 
 |»i-tment. » » * 7/ i^ the PresidlnVs desire that ijou now call the 
 pent ion of Lord Stanley to the claims in a respectful but earnest nmuner, 
 
28 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPEo'TI.VO GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 ,.;:, 1 
 
 I' . 
 
 V 
 
 
 and inforni him tliiit, in tlie President's ju(lj>-ineiit, a .vc/^/6'mc«^ o/ //*m 
 has become urgently necessarj/ to a ro-estal)Iisliine«t of entirely friendly 
 relations between the United States and (Jreat Britain. jf7t/.s' Gorerii- 
 ment, irhile if tIniH hi.sisfs upon these purt'u-idar elaiius, is neither desirous 
 nor willinfj^to assume an attitude unkind o.-uncoiiciliatory towards Great 
 Britain. If, on her part, tiiere are claims eitiier of a eommereiai char- 
 acter, or of boundary, or of commercial or judicial re^fulation, which ITer 
 Majesty's Government esteem important to brinj»' unde- examination at 
 the present time, the United States would, in such case, be not unwill- 
 ing to take them into consiileration in connection with the claims which 
 arc now presented on their part, and with a view to remove at one time, 
 and by on»,' conipreheusive settlement, all cxistin<j causes of misunder- 
 standiiift'." 
 
 Mr. Seward proceeded to recommend, in support of these claims, the 
 use of the same general arguments, (inciluding prominently the alleged 
 effect of the recognition of Southern belligerency, and the general injury 
 to the tiational commence of the United States,) which had been pre- 
 viously so often employed by Mr. Adams. Fie adchMl : " 27/e claiinn 
 upon which we insist are of larc/c amount. They affect the interest of 
 many thousand citizens of the United States, in various parts of the Kei)ul)- 
 lie. The Justice of the claims is sustained by the universal sentiuieiit 
 of the peoj»le of the United States." 
 
 The claims si)ecitied in the inclosure to this despatch (which is headed. 
 '' Summary of claims of citizens of the United States ayainst Great Britain") 
 relate exclusively to losses sustained by the owners and insurers of 
 divers ships and cargoes captured by the "Alabama," the "Shenan- 
 doah," the "Florida," and the "Georgia," respectively. 
 
 This desi)at(rh having been communicated by Mr. Adams to Lord Stan- 
 ley, his Lordshij), through Sir F. Bruce, (Lord Stanley to Sir F. Bruce, 
 3()th Xovember, 18(H!,) called attention to what he supposed to be an 
 accidental error of Mr. SewM'd. in mentioning the "Sumter;" which 
 "did not i)rocee<l from a British port, but was an American vessel, and 
 commenced her career by escai)ino; fn)m the ' Mississippi.'" Then, after 
 dealing with Mr. Seward's general arguuients, and (h'cilining to abandon 
 the ground taken by former Governments, "so far as to admit the liabil- 
 ity of this country for the claims then and now put forward," he ex- 
 pressed his sense of the "inconvenience which arose from the exist- 
 en(,'e of unsettled claims of this character between two powerful and 
 friendly Governments," and his willingness to adopt the principle of ar!)i 
 tration, i)rovided that a lifting arbitrator could be found, and that an 
 agreement could be conu> to as to the points to which arbitration should 
 apply, lie «»bjected to refer to arbitration the cpiestion of the alleged 
 premature recognition of the I'onfederate States as a belligerent ; sayinj; 
 "the act complained of, while it l)ears very remotely on the claims now in 
 question, is <»ne as to which every State must be held to be the sole Judgf 
 of its duty." In another despatch to Sir F. Bruce, of the same date, lie 
 says, "I have contnu'd myself ex(!lusively to the consideration of ///(' 
 Am<'ricini claims^ put forward in Mr. Seward\s despatch to Mr. Adams oj 
 the '21th Auyust, and arisiny out of the depredations committed on America 
 commerce by certain cruizers of tlie (lonfederate States. But, independ- 
 ently ot these claims, there may, for aught Her Majesty's (iovernm<'nt 
 know, be other claims on the part of American citizens, originating in tlu' 
 events of the late civil war, while there certainly are very numerous 
 British claims arising out of those events, which it is very desiraMc 
 should be imiuired into and adjusted between the two countries. * * • 
 The Government of the United States have brought before that of Her 
 
 iJHiijest; 
 lican ei 
 |)atch ; 
 
 0jlorern 
 
 Miou "/" 
 
 riof ''the 
 
 f, n ex[)i 
 
 |o Sir I 
 
 ^ In 
 
 IBeward 
 
 fTth A 
 
 lially c( 
 
 pie Biit 
 
 lin tli( 
 
 Jhe ins 
 
 p^iverpc 
 
 |uot onl,\ 
 
 pledge an 
 
 Vould I 
 
 ladjudici 
 
 ^atislact 
 
 ^IBtates w 
 
 |to reler 
 
 ^•"•hich h; 
 
 jvidenct 
 f-estrictii 
 l^aiving 
 k-O waive 
 ^f natioi 
 i^ny (|ue.*^ 
 ^etermin 
 f To tint 
 fnch an » 
 jCannot C( 
 <nd inde 
 ."which [ 1 
 ter at isst 
 iConsiderj 
 ■ifchose dej, 
 
 fursued 
 uthoritN 
 M the i] 
 >.s',sy',s' of , 
 considi 
 Htnd widci 
 fnlly pre] 
 decision i 
 \tioH of th 
 iio a Mixe 
 \tn them.^^ 
 Ilie adjud 
 in which , 
 of I'urthe 
 ♦rnnient 
 icome to 
 ithc sped 
 
BITRA.TIO>f. 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 29 
 
 r ficttlemcnt of ihvm 
 f (Mitiivly friendly 
 aiii. This Gorern- 
 is neither desirous 
 tory towards Great 
 I cominereiai char- 
 ulation, whicih ITcr 
 lie" examination at 
 !ase, be not unwill- 
 7( the claims ichieh 
 emove at one time, 
 a uses of misiinder- 
 
 )f these clainis, the 
 inently the aUej^ed 
 I tlie general injury 
 lieh had been pro- 
 Ided: "■The clainiH 
 ft'ct the interest of 
 parts of theKei)ub- 
 iniversal sentiment 
 
 •h (whieh is headed, 
 inst Great Br if ((in") 
 rs and insurers of 
 na," the "Shcnau- 
 
 l.v- 
 
 (hims to Lord Stan- 
 ley to Sir F. Bi'uco, 
 supposed to be nii 
 "Sumter;" which 
 ineriean vessel, and 
 ippi.'" Then, aftm 
 ■elinino- to abandon 
 to adndt the liabil- 
 it forward," he ex- 
 )se from the exist- 
 two powerful and 
 e principle of arl)i 
 lund, and that an 
 arbitration should 
 ion of the alleged 
 )ellij>erent ; sayiM.i; 
 i« the claims noic in 
 o be the sole judiic 
 r the same date, in' 
 )nsideration of ///' 
 ■h to Mr. A(la)ns oj 
 mitted on American 
 Hut, indepeiiil- 
 ■sty's (lovernmeiii 
 orijiiimtinji' in tlic 
 re very numerous 
 is very desii'abli.' 
 (> eountries. * * * 
 before that of Her 
 
 JUaJesty one class of claims of a peculiar character, put forward by Amer- 
 ican citizens, in regard to whieli you are authoiized by my other des- 
 j)atch ,)f this date to make a ])roi)osal to Mr. Seward; but Iter .}fajesty''s 
 ■^orcrnmcnt have no corresponding class of claims to urtje upon the atten- 
 lirtH (fthe American Government.'''' And he, presently afterwaids, si»eaks 
 oi' '■'■ the special American claims, to which my othei' despatch alludes," 
 fu expression which is a(h)pted and repeated by Mr, Seward, in his reply 
 to Sir F. Bruce, (12th -January, l.S(J7.) 
 
 I In a further despatch to I\Ir. Adams (12th January, 1807) Mr. 
 IBeward Justifies and reaflirms the sentence in his letter of the 
 «7th August, in which tlu^ " Sumter" was mentioned, as "substau- 
 iially correct," on the ground that that vessel had been adnutted into 
 phe British ports of Trinidad ami Gibraltar, and "allowed to Ixi sold" 
 '|j|in the latter port) " to British buyers, I'or the acccmnt and beneiit of 
 fthe insurgents;" and afterwards received under the British flag, at 
 p^iverpool. Mis ])ractical conclusion is that "tlie United Stales think it 
 ifiiot only easier, but more desirable, that Great Britain should acknowl- 
 :^dge and satisfy ///(; claims for indemnity u'hich u'c have submitted than it 
 Voiihl l)e to tind an equal and wise arbitrator who would consent to 
 ladjudicate them. If, however, Her jMaJesty's GovernnuMit, lor reasons 
 Isatisfactory to them, should prefer the remedy of arbitration, the United 
 :^tates would not object. The United States, in that case, would exi)ect 
 ito reler the whole controversy. Just as it is found in the correspondeiu'c 
 pvhich has taken i)lace between the two Governments, with such further 
 levidence ami arguments as either party nujy desire, without imposing 
 irestrictions, conditions, or limitations n])on the umpire, and without 
 l^aiving any i>rincii)le or ai'gument on either side, 'i'hey canm)t consent 
 M.0 waive any (piestion upcn; the consideration that it involves a p()int 
 lof natioind honour; and, on the other hand, they will not reipiire that 
 i{p,ny (juestion of natioind [>ride or honour shall be expressly ruled and 
 ifletermined as such." 
 
 I To this Lord Sianlev (!>th 3Iarch, 1807, to Sir F. Bruce) replied: "To 
 "Jiueh an extensive and unlimited reference Her Majesty's Government 
 jCannot consent, for this reasiwi, among others, that it would admit of, 
 -$nd indeed compel, the sid)mission to the arbiter of the very (pu-stion 
 ^liich I have ahea<ly said they cannot agree to submit. The real mat- 
 ter at issue between the two Governments, wlien kept ai)art from collateral 
 Considerations, is whether, in the matters connected n-ith the vcssrts out of 
 4rh<>se depredations the clai)»s of American citizens have arisen, the course 
 
 fursued by the British Governnu'nt, and by those who acted under its 
 utiiority, was such as would involve a moral resjfonsibility on the part 
 l8lf the British GovernnuMit to malce (food, either in whole or in part, the 
 ■|o,s',sy',v of American citizens. This is a plain and simple question, easily to 
 fie considered by an arbiter, and admitting of solution ivithout raisiny other 
 md wider issues ; and on this (pu'stion Her Majesty's Governnu'nt are 
 fully prepared to go to arbitration, with the further proviso that, if the 
 decision of the arbiter is uid'avourable to the British view, the e.ramina- 
 •tion of the several claims of citizens of the United :States shall be referred 
 iio a Mixed Commission, with a view to the settlement of the sums to be paid 
 bn //<f«j." His Lordship then repeats that, deeming it imiiortant "that 
 the adjudication of this questicm should not leave other questions of chdms, 
 in which their respective subjects or citizens may be interested, to be matter 
 'Of further <lisagreement between the two countries, Her Majesty's Gov- 
 ernment t 'nk it necessary, in the event of an understanding being 
 tomo to between the two GovernnuMits as to the manner in whitdi 
 ■ihe special American claims (which have formed the subject of 
 

 .1. 
 
 I f. ''•■■■I'^i 
 
 I > ; ' ' ' . 
 
 lii 
 
 
 
 30 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 the correspotiflence of which his preaent despatch icas the sequel) 
 sliould be dealt with, tluit, under a Oouvetitioii to be separately and 
 simultaneously concluded, the {jeneral claims of the subjects and citizens 
 of the two countries arisinj;^ out of the events of the late war should be 
 submitted to a Mixed Commission," &c. " Such, then," (he concluded,) 
 "is the proposal which Her Majesty's Government desire to submit to 
 the Government of the United States ; limited reference to arbitration 
 in ref/ard to the .so-called 'Alabama^ claims, aiul adjudication by means of 
 a Mixed Commission of general claims." 
 
 The first occasion on which these words, " f/te so-called ^ Alabama^ 
 claims,''^ occurred in the course of the whole correspondence was shortly 
 before the date of this letter; in a letter from Mr. Seward to Sir F. 
 Bruce (12th January, 18(57) in wliicli he spoke of Lord Stanley's pre- 
 vious despatch of the 3()th November, ISGO, as setting- forth " the views 
 of Her Majesty's Government of the so-called ^Alabama'' claims presented 
 in my despatch to Mr. Adams,''^ and as concluding with a proposal of "the 
 principle of arbitration, attended with some modification in regard to 
 those claims.''^ Lord Stanley himself had spoken of "the settlement of 
 the '■Alabama'' and other claims," by means of the proposals which he 
 had authorized Sir F. Bruce to make, in a note to Sir F. Bruce, dated 
 the 24th Januarj', 1807. The same phrase, "Alabama claims," hail also 
 been used on one or two occasions, with reference to the same proposed 
 settlement, in articles which previously appeared in some of the English 
 newspapers during the autumn of 1806. 
 
 Lord Stanley's letter of the 9th March, 1867, was, by his direction, 
 read to, and a copy left with, Mr. Seward ; and on the 2d May, 1867, 
 Mr. Adams communicated to Lord Stanley the substance of Mr. Seward's 
 reply, saying that "the Government of the United States adhere to the 
 view which they formerly expressed as to the best way of dealing with 
 these claims. They cannot, consequently, consent to a special and pe- 
 culiar limitation of arbitrament in regard to the '■Alabama'' claims, such 
 as Her Majesty's Government suggest. They cannot give any x)refer- 
 ence to the '■Alabama'' claims over others, in regard to the form of arbit- 
 rament suggested ; an.d, while they agree that all mutual claims which 
 arose during tlie civil war between citizens and subjects of the two coun- 
 tries ought to be amicably and speedily adjusted, they must insist that 
 they must be adjusted by one and the same form of tribunal, with like 
 and the same forms, and on principles common to all." (Lord Stanley 
 to Sir F. Bruce, 2d May, 1807.) 
 
 Tlie language of this communication led Lord Stanley to tiiiuk that 
 his proposal might, periiai)s, have been understood as applying only " to 
 tlie claims arising out of the proceedings of the Alabama, to the exclu- 
 sion of those arising out of the like proceedings of the Florida, Shenan- 
 doah, and Georgia." He therefore wrote to Sir F. Bruce on the 2-lth 
 of May, 1867, saying, " It is important to clear up this point ; ami you 
 will, therefore, state to Mr. Seward that the offer to go to arbitration was 
 not restricted to the claims arising out of the proccedinf/s of the ^Alabama,'' but 
 applied equally to those arisiny out of the liheproceediny of the other vessels 
 that I have nained.^' Referring again to the terms of Ins despatch of the 
 9th of March, he then directs Sir F. Bruce to inform Mr. Seward that ^^thcre 
 was no intention on the part of Her Majesty\s Government to yive any pref- 
 erence, in regard to the form of arbitrament, to the '■Alabama'' claims over 
 claims in t!te like cateyory,'''' thinking that there must have been some 
 misapprehension on this point, because " the question of disposing of 
 general claims, in contradistinction to the specific claims arisiny out of 
 the procced'uiys of the '•Alabama,^ and vessels of thai class, had not hitherto 
 
RATION. 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARIHTRATION. 
 
 31 
 
 ((s the sequel) 
 separately atul 
 >cts and citizens 
 war should be 
 [he concluded,) 
 re to submit to 
 ! to arbitration 
 Du by means of 
 
 Ikd '■Alabama'' 
 ice was shortly 
 ,vard to Sir F. 
 Stanley's pre- 
 rth " the views 
 ;laims presented 
 roposal of "the 
 on in regard to 
 le •settlement of 
 osals which he 
 ?. Bruce, dated 
 aims," had also 
 same proposed 
 ; of the English 
 
 \f his direction, 
 
 i 2d May, 1867, 
 
 of ^Ir. Seward's 
 
 fs adhere to the 
 
 f dealing with 
 
 )ecial and pe- 
 
 ' claims, such 
 
 ive any prefer- 
 
 form of arbit- 
 
 claims which 
 
 the two coun- 
 
 lust insist that 
 
 unal, with like 
 
 (Lord Stanley 
 
 to tiiinlc that 
 
 ying only " to 
 
 to the exclu- 
 
 orida, Shenau 
 
 ce on the 24th 
 
 loint; and you 
 
 arbitration was 
 
 ^Alabama,'' but 
 
 the other vessels 
 
 espatch of the 
 
 •ard that "Merc 
 
 f/ive any pre/- 
 
 irt' claims over 
 
 ive been some 
 
 disposing of 
 
 s arisinfi out of 
 
 id not hitherto 
 
 hocn matter of controversy between the two Governments." Shortly 
 afterward, having spoken of " the frfit or 'Alabama'' class of claims,''' he 
 says, "//te one class, or the specific claims, such as those arisiuff out of the 
 proceedings of the ^Alabama'' and such vessels, depend for their settlement 
 on the solution of what may be called an abstract question, namely, 
 whether, in the matters connected with the vessels, out of tchose depre- 
 dations the claims of American citizens have arisen, the course i)nrsued 
 by the British Government, and those who acted under its authority, 
 was such as would involve a moral responsibility on the part of the 
 British Government to make good, either in whole or in part, the losses of 
 American citizens,''^ and he repeats his former offer of sei)arate modes of 
 arbitration, as to the two classes of claims, viz, ^^ those of the '■Alabama'' 
 (7rt.ss," or "the ^Alabama'' and such like claims,''' and the general claims of 
 the citizens of both countries. 
 
 Further discussion ensued. Mr. Seward, on the 12th of August, 
 1807, (in a despatch communicated by Mr. Adams,) said that he luider- 
 stood the British olfer "to be at once comprehensive and suflbciently 
 jnecise to conclude all the claims of American citizens for depreda- 
 tions on their commerce during the late rebellion, which had been the 
 subject of compla'int on the part of the Government of the United States, 
 but that the Government of tiie United States would deem itself 
 at liberty to insist before the arbitrator that the actual proceedings 
 and relations of the British Government, its officers, agents, and 
 subjects, toward the United States, in regard to the rebellion and 
 the rebels, as they occurred during that rebellion, were among the mat- 
 ters which were connected with the vessels whose depredations were com- 
 plained of." He then objected to the constitution of two different tri- 
 bunals, " one an arbiter to determine the question of the moral resi)on- 
 sihilitj' of the British Government («re(7rt»v/fo the vessels of the '•Alabama'' 
 class, and the other a Mixed Commission to adjudicate the so-called 
 general claims on both sides," and said that "in every case " his Gov- 
 ernment "agreed only to unrestricted arbitration." (Lord Staidey to 
 Sir F. Bruce, 10th September, 1S(J7.) 
 
 Lord Stanley, in his reply of the 10th November, (througli ]Mr. Ford, 
 lOtli November, 1S()7,) used further arguments in supi»ort ot the British 
 projmsal, designating throughout the si)ecial class of claims as " the so- 
 called Alabama claims." 
 
 After some intermission the correspondence was resumed by a des- 
 patch of ^Ir. Seward to IVlr. Adams, expressing his wish "that some 
 nieiiiis might be found of arranging the differences now existing be- 
 tween p]ngland and the United States," which was comuumicated to 
 Lord Stanley on the loth February, 1808. The (piestions causing tliese 
 differences were thus enumerated by Mr. Seward: "1st. The Alabama 
 claims. 2d. The San Juan Question. 3d. The Question of Natural- 
 ized Citizens, their rights and position. 4th. The Fishery Question ;"' 
 and he suggested that " the true method of <lealing with all these mat- 
 ters was by treating them jointly, and endeavouring, by means of a 
 Conference, to settle them all." (Lord Stanley to ]\Ir. Thornton, loth 
 February, 1808.) 
 
 Negotiations followed, in the first instance directed to the third and 
 second of these four questions. On the 20th October, Mr. Beverdy 
 Johnson (who had now succee<led Mr. Adams) called on Lord Stanley 
 "to discuss with me" (says Lord Stanley, in a desi)atch of 21st Octo- 
 ber, 1808, to Mr. Thornton) " the (pu'stiou of the Alabama claims," pro- 
 pctsing a Mixed Commission, to wliom "all the claims on both sides'" 
 should be referred. Lord Stanley "pointed out the inapplicability 
 
r 
 
 32 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 
 
 'r:^ 
 
 (.■:•■ 
 
 M^'v. 
 
 
 of this Dietliod of i)roc'('ediiig, iis aitplicd to tlio Ahthama cJaimn and 
 otliern of the same claxs,''^ iiiul suyj-oHted, as iirbitratov, the head of ii 
 friendly State. As to the roco^iiiitioii of l)ellijj;(!reiie.v, lie said that Ilcr 
 Majesty's (roveriiau'iit could aot depart from the position wldeh they 
 had taken up, ''but that he saw no impossibility in so franiiuf;- the refer- 
 ence as that by mutual consent, either tacit or express, the ditliculty 
 uii^ht be avoided." 
 
 On tiie 10th November, 1808, a Convention was accordinryly signed 
 (subject to ratification) between Lord Stanley, on the part of Her 
 Majesty, and Mr. Johnson on the part of the United States. By article 
 I of this Convention it was agreed that "all clahns of mibjccln of Her 
 Britann'w Majesty upon the Government of the United States, and all 
 claims on the part of citizens of the United States upon the Government of 
 Her Britannic Majesti/, which might have been presented to either Gov- 
 ernment for its interi)()sition witli the other since tlie -!Oth of .luly, 18r);3, 
 * * aad which j'et remain unsettled, as well as any other such claims 
 ■which might be presented witliin the time spt'citied in Article III," (viz: 
 within six mouths from the day of tlie first meeting of tlio Commissioners, 
 unless they or tlie Arbitrator or Umpire should allow a further time,) 
 should be referred t-o four Commissioners, with provision for an arbitration 
 or umpirage, in case of their being unable to como to a decision on any 
 claim. Artiele IV was in these terms: "The Commissioners shall have 
 power to adjudicate upon the class of claims referrei to in the official corre- 
 spondence hetioeen the two Governments as the '■Alabama'' claims^ but before 
 any of snch claims is taken into consideration by them, the two High 
 Contracting Parties shall lis upon some Sovereign or Head of a friendly 
 State as an Arbitrator in resjiect of such claims, to whom such class of 
 claims shall be referred, in case the Commissioners shall be unable to 
 come to an unanimous decision ui)on the same." 
 
 Article VI provided that, "with regard to the heforcmentioned ^Ala- 
 hama^ class of claims, neither Government shall make out a case in sup- 
 l)ort of its position, nor shall any i)erson be heard for <u" against any 
 such claim. Tlu'. ofticial correspondence which has already taken place 
 between the two Governments respecting the (juestions at issue shall 
 alone be laid before the Commissioners; and (in the event of their not 
 coming to an unanimous decision as [U'ovided in Article IV) then before 
 the Arbitrator, without argument written or verbal, aiul without the 
 production of any further evidence. The Commissioners, unanimously, 
 or the Arbitrator, shall, however, be at liberty to call for argumeat oi' 
 further evidence, if th«'y or he shall deem it necessary." 
 
 Down to this point it is manifest that, in all the communications be- 
 tween the two countries, the claims known aiul referred to as " the 
 'Alabama' claims," were claims for direct dainaoe suffered ht/ American 
 citizens through- the acts of the "Alabama" and similar vessels, and 
 such claims only. 
 
 AVhen the terms of this convention became known in America, the 
 Government of the United States dt'sired certain alterations to be made 
 in it, none of which had any tendency either to enlarge the category of 
 the claims in (juestion, or to (diange the sense or application of th*. 
 phrase "the 'Alabanm' claims." The (u)rrespondence, as to the modifi- 
 cations desired, continued till January, lS(i!), when (Her Majesty's Gov- 
 eriimeiit having agreed to the alterations t'len proposed by Mr. Seward) 
 the amended Convention of the 14th of January, 180!), was signed by 
 Lord Clarendon and !Mr. Keverdy Jcdinson. 
 
 The correspondence of this period thvoughout maintains and conflnns 
 the sense which the words of "the ' irMabania' claims," or " the so-culleil 
 
 
 CO 
 
 ^Alabama 
 
 )e('enil»ei' 
 
 Ind cont'ci 
 
 ponveinii) 
 
 ]l<iims ;'' 
 
 Al'dxima ' 
 
 hid othtrs 
 
 llirase iis( 
 
 lied in tii 
 
 irrvil to ii 
 
 Ahthama 
 
 [■(ly -John! 
 
 lewiU'd, 
 
 'Mtioii, al 
 liiiiied i)y 
 |ie place 
 loveriiine 
 jus to the 
 ISIiS. Mr. 1 
 he CoMve 
 ioned in a 
 tuna ' claiii 
 AldhaiiHt ' 
 Mr. llvvi 
 Je('('int»er) 
 hiitedStat 
 liive no ob 
 lie couimi 
 [l((haiii(( ' 
 lis clause, 
 laims. Til 
 becial dire 
 icy tlioiigl 
 biiveiiieiit 
 lot admit 
 ichidcfh as 
 )niprelu'us 
 is to be (' 
 \ass (f clai 
 claims f; 
 is f/ie oh'n 
 well as ) 
 niiestly <l( 
 jcision. 1 
 K) disciiniii 
 Material di,> 
 >eiit; liiit 
 
 all other 
 I) good end 
 Viims, more 
 fe ta-o coun 
 )t aijrec tt 
 lese reaso! 
 ?en contiiii 
 'this (!ontr 
 ►ntrovertei 
 )reign Atf; 
 
 3 G A 
 
ITRATION. 
 
 CORKESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 33 
 
 hama claimn and 
 •, the head of a 
 lie Siiid tliiit llcr 
 tioii wliicli tlu'y 
 [Viiiiiiiif;' the refer- 
 MS, the difliciilty 
 
 cordiiijyly vsigued 
 the i>iirt of Her 
 :iites. By artielc 
 of .subjeetn of Her 
 (i States, and nil 
 flic Government of 
 eil to either Gov- 
 iGth of .liily, 1853, 
 )ther .such chiiiiis 
 .Vitiele III," (viz: 
 eODiumis.siouer.s, 
 a further time,) 
 for ail arbitration 
 
 I (leei.siou on any 
 iioiiers shall have 
 
 II the ojjic'ud corre- 
 clahns,, but before 
 sill, the two llif>h 
 lead of a friendly 
 loiii such i'latis vf 
 lall be unable to 
 
 e-mcntioncd ^Ala- 
 
 out a case in sup- 
 
 M or against any 
 
 ady taken place 
 
 ins at issue shall 
 
 eiit of their not 
 
 IV) tiien before 
 
 iiid without the 
 
 rs, uuiUiiniously, 
 
 for ar^"(i:ucnt oi 
 
 nnuinications be- 
 irred to as " the 
 
 red by American 
 ilar vessels, and 
 
 in America, the 
 itious to be made 
 
 the category of 
 )plication of tlii, 
 as to the niodili- 
 >r Majesty's Gov- 
 l by Mr. Seward) 
 I, was signed by 
 
 ins and con (inns 
 or " the socalkil 
 
 [Aliibaina' claims," had now acquired. In Lord Stanley's despatch of 
 
 K'ceniber S, 1S(».S, to Mr. Thornton, memoranda of several coiisidtations 
 
 Lid conferences with Mr. Keverdy .rohnson, ])rior to the signatur*' of the 
 
 ^onvciirion of the lOth November, were inclosed. ^^ The '■ Aloha ma'' 
 
 ioimK ;"' '■'the ' Alnlmma'' anil other similar claims;" '■'the .so called 
 
 [lahama ' and other similar claims,''' and •' the so-called ' Alabama ' claims, 
 
 \vd others included under the same head.'''' are the s<'veral viirieties of 
 
 lluiisc used in these memoranda to describe the subject, uUiniafely de- 
 
 ned in the Fourth Article of that Convention as " ///fi class of cUtims re- 
 
 frred to in the olJieial correspondence beta-een the tiro (iorernments as the 
 
 AUdiama'' claiinsP In a letter of the 12th Novend)er, lSi58, Mr. Kev- 
 
 rdy -lolinson, while communicating a telegi'a])hic despatch from .Mr. 
 
 nviU'd, (in which a 
 
 il apjiroval of tiu' terniR of the Coii- 
 
 'iition, afterwards moditied in various important ]ioints, was accom- 
 
 anied by a stipulation that Washington, and not London, should be 
 
 (le place ol' nu'cting of the Commissioners, to which Her Majesty's 
 
 lovernmeiit assentecl,) said. "I think the change will be <lisit(l\antage- 
 
 lus to the '■ Alabama'' claimants.'''' in a despatch of 30th November, 
 
 |.S!;s, Mr. Thornton stated tiui objections then urged by .Mr. Seward to 
 
 lie Convention; in which Mr. Seward also sjioke of the chiiiiis nien- 
 
 loiied in article IV as " the '■Alabama^ and war claims,''' and '' ihe ' Ala- 
 
 f( ma '' claims,''^ and of the persons intereste«l in those chiiiiis as " ^Ae 
 
 Alabama'' claimants''' .Mr. Seward's desi)atch of the 27tli NovfMuber 
 
 Mr. IJcverdy .lohnsou (coiuinunicat(!d to Lord Clarendon on the 22d 
 
 )eceinber) repeatedly employs the same language. lie says, "The 
 
 fiiitcd States are oblige<l to disallow this Article IV. The United States 
 
 jave no objection to the llrst chinse of the Article, which declines that 
 
 le commissioners shall have ])ower to adjudicate upon the so called 
 
 ilalxima' claims. IiHleed,the United States would willingly retain 
 
 lis cliiuse, bec'aiise of its exiilicitness with regard to the '■Alabama^ 
 
 laims. Tiiey did not, in their instructions to you, insist upon such a 
 
 lieciiil direction in regard to the ^ Alalxona'' claims ; but only because 
 
 ley tliought that special mention of these claims might be deemed in- 
 
 bnvciiieiit on tlu^ jiart of Her ^Majesty's Government; while it (!Ould 
 
 jot iidmit of doubt that these so-called - Alabanui'' claims n-cre plainhi 
 
 xcludvd. as well as all other claims of citizens of the United >Slates, in the 
 
 )mpi'eheiisive des(;ri]>tion of claims contained in Article I. Secondly, 
 
 is to be considered by Her ^Majesty's (ioveriunent that the '■Alabama^ 
 \ass of claims constitute the largest and most material of the entire viafis 
 
 claims <f citizenH of the United States against Great Jiritain, tchich 
 is the (d)ject of the t'onrention to adjust. Upon the '■ Alab((ma^ claims, 
 
 well as all others, this Government is content to obtain, and most 
 iriiestly desires, a perfectly fair, etpnil, and imjiartiiil judicial trial and 
 ecisioii. Tills (lOvernmeiit has always e\i)licitly stat<'d iliat it asks 
 K) (liseiiminatiou in favor of the ' Alaliama ' claims, and can admit of no 
 Material (liscrimination against them in the forms of trial and judg- 
 lent: but must, on the contrary, have tliem jilaced on the same basis 
 
 all otlier claims." ***** ujf probably would conduce to 
 i) good end to set forth, on this occasion, the reasons why ///e '■Abdxtma^ 
 V(//;/.s', more than anij other cla,ss of international claims c.ristiu<j latu'ccn 
 \e in-o countries, are the very claims aijainst n-hich the United States can- 
 )t aijree to, or admit of any pr(judicial discrimiiiation. To pr<'sent 
 iesi' reasons now would be simjiiy to restate arguments wliicii have 
 ?eii continually presented by this Department in all the former stages 
 'this controversy ; while it is fair to admit that these reasons have been 
 ^ntroverted with e(iual perseverance by Her Majesty's Department for 
 )reign Atfairs." 
 
 o G A 
 
34 
 
 CORllKSPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITKATION. 
 
 Lii 
 
 •.1 1- 
 ■•( I':- •» 
 
 % 
 
 
 
 Tlio jjeneral result of this corrcspondtMicc was that, in the Convention 
 of the 14th .liiiiuaiy, 18(Jt>, otlier provisions were sjibstitutetl for tliost; 
 of tJH' IVtii and Vlth Articles of tiie Convention of KMii November, 
 18(».S, t(» which the United States Government had objected ; and the 
 special meiiti(»n of tiie '• Alabama" was transfened from those Articles; 
 to Article I, which provide<l'* that all claims on the putt o/snhjects of livr 
 liritunnic Mtijc.sty upon the Government of the United States, and alii 
 claim.s mi the ptirf of citizens of the United Sttiten upon the Gorernmcnt oj'\ 
 Her Ihitannie Majesty, incluithiif the Hovalled '' Alabama' vlnhnny \\\\'\m\ 
 may have been presented to either Government for its interposition 
 witli tlie other since the 20th of .July, l.S.">;j, * # # and wiiicli | 
 yet remain unsettled, as well as any otiier such claims which may bo< 
 presented within the time specified in Article III of this Convention,! 
 whether or not arising out of the late civil war in the United States,] 
 shall l)e referred," (S:c. 
 
 On the -LM Febrimry, 1SG9, Mr. Thornton reported to Lord Clareiij 
 don the Resolution of a majority of the Committee on Foreign Relations 
 of the Senate of the United States, recommendin}'' the ScMiate not tol 
 ratify this Convention, Mr. Sumner, who moved the resolution, having^ 
 said " that it eovered none of the prineiples for which the United States | 
 had always contended." lie also inclosed a Resolution of the Legisla- ' 
 ture of Massachusett'*, " protesting against tiie ratilication of any Con- 
 vention which (lid not admit the liability of England for the acts of thci 
 ^Alabama ' and her con.wrts.''^ 
 
 On the 2l'd ]\Iarcli, 1801), Mr. Keverdy Johnson (without any sjiecial 
 instructions) called upon Lord Clarendon, and proposed a further; 
 change in the 1st Article of the Convention, which he thought j 
 " would satisfactorily meet the objections entertained by the Senate to! 
 the Convention, and would secure its ratification by that body."'| 
 This n(^w change consisted in the introduction of '■^ all claims on thc'i 
 part of Her Britannic Majesty''s Government tqwn the Gorernmcnt ojl 
 the United iSitites, and all claims on the part of the Government of thel 
 United States upon the Government of Her Britannic il/<(yV'.s7i!/," as well 
 as all claims of subjects and citizens, as to which the language of the* 
 Convention would have remained unaltered. Lord Clarendon reports| 
 what then took place in his despatch to Mr. Thornton, (Marcli 2li, 1800.) 
 "I remarked to Mr. Johnson that his projmsal would introduce an en- 
 tirely new feature into the Convention, which was for the settlement of| 
 claims between tlie subjects and citizens of Great Britain and the United | 
 States, but that thetico Governments not having put forivard any claims o\\\ 
 each other, I could oidy suppose that his object was to favor the intro- 
 duction of some claim by the Government of the United States for injury? 
 sustained on account of the ])()licy pursued by Her Majesty's Govern- 1 
 meut. Mr. Keverdy Johnson did not object to this interpretation of his 
 aineuduient, but -aid that //" claims to compensation on account of thc^ 
 recognition by the British Government of the belligerent rights of the Con- 
 federates tvere brought for u-ard by the Government of the United States,'^ 
 the British Government might, on its part, bring forward claims to compen- 
 sation for damages done to British subjects by American blockades, ivhichA 
 if the Confederates were not belligerents, were illegally enforced againsn 
 tkemJ'^ Lord Clarendon then, after referring to the proofs which IIei'| 
 Majesty's Government had given of their willingness to make any reason- 
 able amendments to meet the wishes of the United States, and to the| 
 dit!erence in the course of piM)ceeding adopted in America, said "thatj 
 it did not seem proper for Her Majesty's Government to take any furtheri 
 step in tlie nuitter, or to adopt any amendment to the Convention, eveu J 
 if it had been free from objection." 
 
JITRATION. 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESrECTING GENEVA ARniTRATION. 
 
 35 
 
 in the Convention j 
 stituted for tlioso 
 
 lOtii NovcinluT, 
 Itjocted ; and the 1 
 oni those Aiti(!U'.S; 
 t of snhjevts of Her 
 'd States, and aUi 
 the Goi'enimcnt of 
 [ina' clrdiits, which 
 r its interposition 
 * and wliicli 
 ms which may bc' 
 
 tliis Convention, I 
 }(i United States, 
 
 1 to Lord Chirenj 
 Foreign Relations 
 the SiMuite not to| 
 resolution, having* 
 the United States! 
 i)n of the Leyisla- 
 ;ation of any Con-^ 
 for the acts of thd^ 
 
 ithout any siieciali 
 roposed a further I 
 Inch he thouglit; 
 by tlui Senate to! 
 
 by that body."'| 
 " all ehdms on thei 
 the Goreninicnt of 
 Government of the 
 
 Majesfy,''^ as well 
 e lanj;uage of the 
 'laren<lon reports 
 I, (March liL', 1809.) 
 |l introduce an en- 
 
 the settlement of 
 in ami the United 
 
 ard any claims o)i| 
 
 favor the intro- 
 
 1 States for injury 
 ilajesty's Govern- 1 
 -erpretation of his 
 
 <n account of tk^ 
 rights of the Con- 
 the United States, 
 claims to compen- 
 blockades, which, 
 enforced against 
 k'oofs which Her 
 jraake any reason- ^ 
 ;ate8, and to the| 
 lerica, said "that: 
 Itake any further] 
 poll vention, even 
 
 IMr. Keverdy Johnson (still without authority) renewed his i)roposi- 
 tion, in a letter to Lord Clarendon, dated 2~>th March, 1S(»1), in which 
 lie stated that he had reason to believe tiiat the objection of the Senate 
 )f the L'nited States to the Convention cons'sted "in the fact tliat the 
 |C(»i!vention provided only for the settleinen, )y arbitration of the indi- 
 fi-iilual claims of British subjects and American citizens upon the resinvtivc 
 Ui'iirnuiients, and not for any claims n-hich either Gorernmcnt, as such, 
 \ni(iht have upon the other.''^ " My Government,''^ he added, " believe, as I 
 [ani now advised, that it has a claim of its own upon Her Majesty\s Gov- 
 vrnment, because of the consequences resulting from a premature recogni- 
 tion of the Confederates during our late war, and from the fitting out of 
 Hie 'Alabama' and other similar vessels in Her Majesty's ports, «/u/ 
 [froni their permitted entrance into other ports to be refitted and pro- 
 lisionetl during their piratical cruise. The existence of such a claim 
 makes it as necessary that its ascertainment and adjustment shall be 
 jnovided for as the individual cUiims growing out of the same cinnim- 
 Istaiices." 
 
 The United States Government, down to this time, liad insisted that 
 the new Convention ought strictly to follow the precedent of the Con- 
 tention of 1853, which contained no provision for any species of public 
 claims. Lord Clarendon, therefore, on the 8th of April, 180!), thus 
 uiswered Mr. Reverdy Johnson : " Her Majesty's Government could not 
 fail to observe that this proposal involved a wide departure from the 
 tenor and terms of the Convention of 1853, to which, in compliance 
 Iwitli your instructions, you have constantly pressed Her Majesty's Gov- 
 lerninent to adhere, as necessary to insure the ratification of a new Con- 
 Ivention by the Senate of the United States. No undue importance 
 lis attached to this deviation ; but I beg leave to inform you that, 
 lin the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, it w«)uld serve no 
 luseful purpose now to consider any amendment to a Convention 
 JAvhich gave full effect to the wishes of the United States Ciovern- 
 Iment, and was approved by the late President and Secretary of 
 Istate, who referred it for ratification to the Senate, Avhere it 
 lappears to have encountered objections, the nature of which has not 
 jheen otiicially made known to Her Majesty's Government." 
 
 Mr. Keverdy Johnson, on the 9th of April, replied that "the design 
 lof tlie Convention of 1853 was to settle all claims which either Govern- 
 pnent, in behalf of its own citizens or subjects, might have upon the 
 )ther. * * * * At that time neither Government, as such, made a 
 ^lemand upon the other. But that, as my proposition assumes, is not the case 
 \)ww. The Government of the United States believes that it has, in its own 
 right, a claim upon the Government of Her Majesty. In order, therefore, 
 to a full settlement of all existing claims, it is necessary that the one 
 hchich my Government maJics, and any corresponding claim which Her Ma- 
 jesty\<i Government may have upon the United States, should be included 
 Iwithin the Convention of the 14th January, 1809. My instructions, 
 \to which Yonr Lordship refers, were to provide for the settlement of the 
 \claims mentioned in such instructions by a Convention upon the model of 
 Itlie one for February, 1853. That 1 did not suggest in the negotiations 
 hchich led to the Convention of January ,• the including within it any Gov- 
 \ernmental claims teas because my instructions only referred to the individ- 
 hial claims of citizens and subjects. 1 forbear to speculate as to the 
 [grounds upon which my instructions were .so limited.''^ 
 
 Her Majesty's Government adhered to their decision not to entertain 
 [at all the suggestion thus made by Mr. Keverdy Johnson ; and they in- 
 [timated (iu correction of an erroneous inference drawn by him from the 
 
 If 
 
 It; s 
 
I 
 
 t ■'• 
 
 I ' 
 
 'J' I",-, n , 
 
 fu; ■■:■ 
 ill'.,. • 
 
 It 
 
 it 
 
 ..I.. ■■■ 
 
 ill" 
 
 H 
 
 CORRESPONDRNCK REHPKCTINa OENEVA ARIUTRATION. 
 
 COIil 
 
 ooncliuliiij; seiitoiico of Lord Clurcndon's letter of tlio Stli A]»ril) tliat 
 it was not to lie siipixtscd that tin's proiiosal wonl<l he acccptnhle to Mer 
 jMiiJcsty's (lOVcniiiM'iit, even if it were made or rejx'ated under |)osilivo 
 iiistnu'tions from tlie Unit«'d States (Joveriimeiit, and with tlie prospect 
 of terminatiiifj' the entire controversy. (Lord Clarendon to Mr. .John-, 
 son, ]rttli April, lS(i{); and -Mr. -Johnson's reply, l(i//( April, 1S(!!>.) 
 
 From this incident in the histoiy of the iieji'otiations the following 
 conclusions of fact result: 
 
 1. That .Mr, I'everdy Johnson's instinctioiis from his (lovernmeiit 
 never extended to the assertion or settlement of any other claims thnn 
 tliose of individual citi/ens of th(^ Uinted States against (Jreat I'ritaiii. 
 
 L'. That in su;;f;'estiii,!4' (for the fust time) the possible existence of pub- 
 lic <'laims on behalf of liis (Jovernment, he acted without authority. 
 
 .'?. That no such ])ubli(! claitus as those of which the existence was 
 HU,ujiested by him had ever been presenti'd or notified ; nor were, even 
 then, ill any manner detined. 
 
 ■1. That the i)ubli<^ claims, of which the ])ossible existence was so sii;' 
 gest(Ml, were not claims "f;iowin<i" or arisinj? (sim]»ly) "out of the acts 
 of'' the "Alabama,'' or any other vessels ; but claims " because of t lie 
 c(Uisc(pieiic(>s resnltiiifi" i'rom u ]u<Mnature ri'cojiuition of the Confedc 
 rates duiin;^' the war, AMI) from the tiftiui'' out of the ' Alabama,' and 
 other similar vessels in Her ^Majesty's [(orts, AND from their ])('riuitte(l ,^J'j' 
 eiitraiieo into other ])orts." 
 
 r». That t\w wor&A '■'■Aldlmma claims^' {ov any equivalent iorm of ex 
 pression) wore never made use of, nor was their use ever]»roposed to Ik 
 varied or extended so as to (,'ompreheiid this new class of (suyjj,este(l 
 public claims. 
 
 (J. That the idea of a onesided reference of such supj)osed ])ubli( 
 claims of the (Tovermnent of the Huited States oidy was never for fi 
 moment advaiuied or entertained; on the contrary, the essential comli 
 tion of j\h'. -lohnsoii's jiroposal w.'is that it shouhl also be open to IftT 
 jMaj'esty to advance any i)ubli(! claims whatever which they miuht con ^|^i*^';V '' 
 ceive themselves to hav(> ajiainst tlie Government of the United States 
 — a claim for injury to IJritish interests, by the assertion and exercisi 
 of belliiicrent ri<>hts a.uainst P>ritish commerce, beiiis expressly antici 
 pated, as f> ]»robable or jiossible set-off to any claim on the i)art of tlit 
 United States, founded upon the denial of a belligerent status, at any 
 given period, t(* the C'onfederates. 
 
 7. Tiiat, althoujili ottered under these conditions, the jiroposal w;i> 
 simi)ly, and without a discussion, declined by Her Majesty's (loverii 
 ment. 
 
 Jt was in Mr. Sumner's sjieech, at the meetinj;' of the United State> 
 Senate, which refused to ratify the Convention oi' the 14tli danuan, 
 18(»1>, that the tirst con(;eption of imblic claims, of the nature and mas 
 iiitude of those now advanced in the "Case" of the United States, wa- 
 inade known to the world. His arjiinnent on this head was thus sumnic' 
 up i)y .Mr. Thornton, (l!Hli April, l,S()!t, to Lord C'larendon :) "Yeir 
 Lordship will perceive that the sum of Mr. Sumner's assertions is, tlur 
 En,i>lan(l insulted the United States by the jirematiue, unfriendly, am: 
 unnecessary Proclamation oi" the (^ueen, enjoining' neutrality on Iloi 
 Majesty's subjects ; that she owes them an apology for this step; that 
 she is rcspoiisihie for the propcrf;/ destrafjed hi/ Ihc '•Alahamn'' and otlin 
 Confederate criiizers, and even for the remote damatje to Ameriean shippim 
 interests, inelu'linij the inerettse of the rate of insnranee : that the Vonjhirr- 
 ates were so mneh assisted hi/ beinr/ able to (jet arms and ammunition froin 
 Enf/laud, and so much eneonratjed by the i^uccn^s Proclamation, that tk 
 
 among othe 
 or (at least 
 lisi)utuble. 
 vith tiie Sc 
 iry, 18()D, t 
 erriul from 
 )rovisious c 
 ■ion for tin 
 vhich he coi 
 'The rresi( 
 >f the indei; 
 ridual citizei 
 Hty by 1 ebel 
 le noic prepa 
 sh Oovcrnme 
 flieted on the 
 'ive effeet of 
 lion of beliiin 
 upply of shi^ 
 'Vise, in what 
 
ITRATION. 
 
 COURKSrONDKN'CE RE.Sl'KCTIiVG GENEVA AKBITUATION. 
 
 ;]7 
 
 [•(()' Idsfril initvli loni/or than if ivindd otkcninsc hare tlinu\ and tli'd wo 
 \inilif thirrfoi'e to jxii/ InKKilnnt'H adtlitionni vxofmr.H iiuposnl niimi the Inii- 
 
 it SI'drs l)ji llir ih'ohmnnfioii of the iviir." Mr. Siumn'i' hiiiisi'ir did not 
 ItlucL to rcpi'bsiiiit tlii3 lattiu' i)iiili()ii at all cvciils of lil.s sii^yvsti'd du- 
 ^Miid. as '• ^lowiii;;' out of tin; acts of tlio "Alabama," or ol'aiiy other 
 
 Miticiiiar vt'ssi'ls; and !\[r. Tlioriitou's cimiint'iit upon tlin wli >li', ol" it 
 lliows very (jlearly iIjb iiiiiossiliility of asiMibiui;' to Ihe ants of any par- 
 jiciilar vcsst'ls allt;j;vil to liavo hoan fitted out froai Drltlsli ports, eitiier 
 |Le whole or any asc/iu'taiiiable part of the ^^'cncral losses siistaiaisd by 
 
 LiiU!ri(!au coiiiiueree darliiji" the war, or ev. 'i distiiin'uishiii'j; biMwceii 
 lueli losses of that kind as were real and iiiose which were apparent 
 >iily. 
 
 So far no step was taken by the United States (rovernnient to adopt 
 fir. Saauier's views or to advaiii;e claims cornisixjudin^' to tluMu. On 
 e 10th of .Inne, 180!), Mr. JMotley renewed to Lord Clarendon the 
 claration of the wish of his (iovernment " that existin"' differences 
 
 stence was so sn<,'- 
 ) "out of the acts 
 I " hecause of tlit 
 1 of the Confedc 
 i' 'Alabama,' am! 
 I their ]>ernnttcil 
 
 alent form of ex 
 ^•«'r))roposed to Ik 
 iss of (su<^j>'est('(l 
 
 supposed ])ubli( 
 • was never for ; 
 e essential eoiali 
 be open to Mci 
 tliev nn<>ht con- 
 he Uniteil Stato 
 ion and exercist 
 ;• expressly antici 
 n the i)avt of tin 
 nt status, at any 
 
 the i)i'oi)osal Ava^ 
 lajesty's (Jloverii 
 
 le United Statt» 
 u' 14th ,Ianuaiy, 
 nature and mai; 
 nited States, wii- 
 was thus snnuiic 
 rendon :) "Yon: 
 issertions is, tliii' 
 », unfriendly, aiui| 
 eutrality on Jloit 
 this step ; tliii! 
 ih(()na ' (Old otlti'i 
 \ mri'icau fihippini 
 that the Cotifcdcr 
 (iinmynithn frm 
 hanation, that tk 
 
 )et\veen the two countries should be honourably settled, and that the 
 fidernutioual relations should be platted on a lirm and satisiactory 
 asis," whicth Lord ('larendon of course recii)ro(!ateil. Then, after advert- 
 \\\<^ to other subjects, he said that " the Claims Conveidion had been 
 ■)ublished prematurely, owinj;- to some acci«teut whi< !i he could not ex- 
 )lain; and that conse(juently, long before it came under the notice of 
 lie Senate, it had been uufavoural)ly nnieived by all classes aiul parties 
 n the United States. The time at whidi it was signed was thoujiht 
 nost inopportune, as the late President and his (iovernment were vir- 
 tually out of otlice, and their successors coidd not be comnutted on this 
 iiave (luestion. The Convention was furiher objected to ttceauHc it cin- 
 iraccd only the claims of individuals, and had no rc/crcnev to those of the 
 ICO Gocerninents on each other;'''' and, "lastly, that it settled no (piestioii 
 uid laid down no jr/inciijle. These were the chief reasons which had led 
 o its rejection by t.ic Senate;" and yU: ^Motley added "that althou<;h 
 ;hey had not been iii once and explicitly stated, no discourtesy to ller 
 lajesty's Government was thereby inteiuletl.'' 
 On the 2.jth of September, 18GD, Mr. Fish revived the whole subject 
 f the controversies between the two Governuu nts within its widest 
 ange in a lony ami elaborate despatch to Mr. Motley, in which he referred 
 amonj>' other thinj;s) to the responsibility of the British Government 
 or (at least) '■^ all the depredations committed hi/ the 'Alabama'''^ as iu- 
 isputable. lie stated, towards the end, the President's concurrence 
 lith the Senate in disapproving the Convention of the 14th Janu- 
 ry, 1800, thinkiuy (in addition to j;eneral reasons left to be in- 
 erriHl from the general arj^uments of the despatch) that " the 
 )rovisions of the Convention were inade([uate to provide repara- 
 ion for the United States in the manner and to the degree to 
 -hich he considers the United States entitled to redress,'' lie added: 
 ' Tlie President is not yet prepared to pronounce on the question 
 f the indemnities which he thinks due by Great Britain to iudi- 
 ridual citizens of the Uiuted States for the destruction of their i>rop- 
 rty by lebel cruizers litted out in the i)orts of Great Britain. Nor is 
 e noic prepared to speak of the reparation ichich he thinlcs duo by the Brit- 
 ish Government for the lart/er account of the vast national injuries it has in- 
 licted on the United /stales. Xor does he attempt now to measure the rela- 
 tive oXfeet of the various causes of injury ; as, whether by untimely recogni- 
 tion of belliyereney ; by sujj'eriny the fittiny-out of rebel cruizcrs ; or by the 
 )^upply of ships, arms, and munitions of war to the Confederates ; or other- 
 fvise, in whatsoever manner. * * * All these are subjects of futuie 
 
38 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 001 
 
 1 
 
 T 
 
 >■ J 
 
 
 r * 
 
 considoration, wliicb, when the time for action shall come, the President 
 will consider, with sincere and earnest desire that all differences be- 
 tween the two nations may be adjnsted amicably and compatibly with 
 the honour of each, and to the future i)romotion of concord between 
 them ; to which end he will spare no efforts within the range of his su- 
 preme duty to the rights and interests of the United States. * * * 
 At the present stage of the controversy, the sole object of the President 
 is to state the position and maintain tlie .attitude of the United States 
 in the varinus relations and aspects of this grave controversy with 
 Great Britain. It is the object of this paper (which you are at liberty 
 to read to Lord Clarendon) to state cdml^v and dispassionately, with a 
 more unmeasured freedom than might be used in one addressed directly 
 to the (Queen's Government, what this Government seriously considers 
 the injuries it has suffered. It is not irritten in the nature of a claim, 
 for the Cnited States noiv make no demand affainst Her Majestifs Government 
 on aecoHut of the injuries they feel they hare sustained.^^ 
 
 Lor<l Clarendon, understanding this desi)atch as intended to revive, 
 and to prepare tlie way for a new settlement of, the claims previously 
 advanced, spoke of it in his answering despatch to ]Mr. Thornton (No 
 vember 0, 180!>) as "a despatch from 3Ir. Fish on the ^Ahthnmn^ claims:' 
 That it was not intended to extend, and that it had not the effect of ex- 
 tending, the signitication of that term, as used in the previous corre- 
 spondence, is plain, (1) from the fact that Mr. Fish expressly disclaimed 
 for his despat(!h the otHce or effect of makimj any new claim or demand; 
 (2) that it reserved ibr future consideration the question of reparation 
 for the (sni)posed) "national injuries" intlicted by the British Govern- 
 ment on tlie United States; and (.'{) that it " declined to measure the 
 relative effect of the various (alleged) causes of injury;" the "suffering 
 th litting-out of rebel cruizers" being only one of tiiree causes enu- 
 uu'rated. Lord Clarendon simply contentecl himself witii rejdying that 
 "Jler ^Majesty's (iovernment could not make any new propositiim, or 
 run the risk of another unsuccessful negotiation, until tiu'y had infer- 
 nnition more clear than that which was containeil in Mr. Fish's desi)at(!li 
 respecting the basis upon which the Government of tlie United States 
 would be <lisi)osed to negotiate." But, in a paper of observations upon 
 the arguments in this despatch, which he at the same time (<ith 
 November, 18()i>) transmitted to 3lr. Thornton, to be communicated 
 to Mr. Fish, he remarked, under the head of ^^ Indirect injury to 
 American commerce,''^ ^'■This alleyation of national, indirect, or con- 
 structire claims iras first In-out/ht forn-ard oljiciatly by ^fr. Rercrdy'fohnson. 
 in his attempt to rencn- negotiations on the Chinese Conrcntion in March 
 last. Mr. Thornton has shown the dihiculty there would be in comi)ut- 
 ing the amount of the claim, even if it were acknowledged, in a (lesi)at('li 
 in which lu^ mentions the continual decrease of American tonnage. 
 This is partly, no doubt, to be ascribed to the disturbance of comnuT- 
 cial relations consequent on a long war, ]>artly to the tact that many 
 vessels were nominally transferred to IJritish owners during the war to 
 escape cai>ture. * * * * Is not, iiowever, a good deal of it 
 to !»' attriltnted to the high American taritf, which makes the construc- 
 tion of vessels in American ])orts more exi)ensive than ship-building in 
 England, and has thereby thrown so large a proportion of tiie carryins; 
 trade into I'^ngiish hands.' There must be sonu' such cause for it, or 
 otlu'rwise American shijiping would have recovered its position since 
 the war. instead of continuing to fall off." # # * # # And 
 with regard to " the claims for ntst national injuries,^'' he noticed tlnit 
 ]'rofessor W(dsey, the eminent American jurist, had repudiated them 
 as untenable, cS:c. 
 
 This chi 
 >ov(Miune 
 legotiatioi 
 l)'that, d( 
 >rnment, t 
 nent of a .1 
 other (pie> 
 Her Majest 
 formulated 
 Majesty's 
 of individn 
 similar ve? 
 Mr. Fish's 
 intimated 
 might be 
 tliough th 
 that the gr 
 lublic clai 
 hama and 
 lacts; and 
 )cen used, 
 (•iil)e the 
 esses by tl 
 and had 
 public or 
 States. 
 
 It was nil 
 ary, 1S71, n 
 the remova 
 United Stat 
 committed Ih 
 known as th 
 of cordial a 
 E. Tlun-nto 
 Earl (Jranv 
 great satisl 
 bam a'' elaih 
 Connnissioi 
 (|uestions r 
 discussed, ] 
 zens of the i 
 civil war ii 
 sion." I\Ir. 
 1871, alter 
 the satistiii 
 gencc that 
 ty's (Joven 
 ment as to 
 and that " 
 American e 
 war ill tliis 
 sanu' High 
 Mr. Fish 
 tseveial Ibr 
 [/>fljw<f' clain 
 |o/«Jw,s'," 'W 
 
 
ITRATION. 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 39 
 
 me, the President 
 11 (lifferenees be- 
 compatibly with 
 concord between 
 ! range of his sii- 
 >tates. * * * 
 t. of the President 
 le United States 
 contx'oversy with 
 on are at liberty 
 sionately, with a 
 ddressed directly 
 'liously considers 
 at lire of a claim, 
 je.sty\s Government 
 
 ended to revive. 
 
 'lalnis previously 
 
 r. Thornton (No- 
 
 Alabama'' chiim>s:' 
 
 t the effect of ex- 
 
 ? previous corre- 
 
 ressly disclaimed 
 
 chuiiiov demand; 
 
 on of reparation 
 
 British (Jovern- 
 
 I to measure the 
 
 ■;" the "suffering 
 
 hree causes enii- 
 
 ith re])lyin<>- that 
 
 V proijosition, or 
 
 they had infor- 
 
 Fish's desi)at('h 
 
 United States 
 
 >servations upon 
 
 same time ((ith 
 
 cominunicated 
 
 'lirect injury 1o 
 
 ntlireet, or con- 
 
 h'ei'erdi/'fohnsint. 
 
 rention in jMarck 
 
 Id be in comput- 
 
 1, in a despatch 
 
 n('ii(!an tonnage. 
 
 nice of commer- 
 
 e lact that many 
 
 uringthe war to 
 
 good deal of it 
 
 ces the construc- 
 
 ship-buildingin 
 
 of the carrying 
 
 I cause for it, or 
 
 ts position since 
 
 * * And 
 
 le noticed that 
 
 epudiated them 
 
 P 
 
 communications between the two 
 (ioveniments, anterior to those whi(!h had for their immediate result the 
 negotiation of the Treaty of Washington. They show CDiiclusively : 
 1) that, down to the 2<)th of January, 1.S71, (when Her INFaJesty's (Jov- 
 ■rnment, tlirough Sir E. Thornton, proposed to Mr. Fish the ai)point- 
 inentof a Joint High Commission to settle the Fishery (Question, and all 
 other (piestions affecting "the relations of the United Stales toward 
 Her Majesty's possessions in Xortli America,'') no avtual claim had been 
 forninlated or notified on the part of the United States against Her 
 Majesty's (rovernment, except for the capture or destruction of property 
 of individual citizens of the United States by the "Alabama," and other 
 similar vessels; (2) that the (xovernment of the United States had, in 
 Mr. Fish's despatch of the 25th of September, ISfll), for the lirst time 
 intimated to the (lovernment of this country that they considered there 
 might be grounds for some claims of a larger and uunv i>nblie nature, 
 though tliey puiposely abstained at that time from n;aking them ; (3) 
 tliat the gi'ounds indicated, as those on which any such larger .indmore 
 [public claims might be made, were not limited to the acts of the Ala- 
 bama and other similar vessels, or to any mere consecpuMice of tiiose 
 lacts: and (4) that the expression "f//e 'yl/rt/>rtw«"' c/<//h/.s' had always 
 jceii used, in the corresixmdence between the two (lovernnients, to de- 
 cril)e the claims of American citizens on account of their own <lirect 
 osscs by the depredations of the Alabama "and other similar vessels;" 
 and had never been employed to describe, or as comi)rehending, any 
 puldic or national claims whatever of the Government of the United 
 States. 
 
 It was under these circumstances that Mr. Fish, on the .'Utth of Janu- 
 ary, IS71, nifonned Sir E. Thornton that the PresidiMit thougiit "that 
 the lemoval of the <lifferenees which arose during the rebellion in the 
 United States, and which has existed since then, f/roiritai out of the actii 
 eommitteil hi/ tin sereral resnels, irhieli hail (jiren rise to the etaiiiis i/enerieallif 
 l-noirn as tJie ^Athama'' claims, would also be essential to the restoration 
 of cortlial and amicable relations between the two (lovernnients," Sir 
 E. Thornton replied (1st February, ISTl) that he was authorized by 
 Earl (iranville to state that "it W(udd give Her Majesty's (iovernnient 
 great satisfaction if the claims commonly J^noicn by the name of the '•Ala- 
 Imma'' claims were submitted to the con.sideraticui of the same High 
 Commission, by which Her jNIajesty's (iovennnent had proposed that the 
 (|nestioiis relating to British ])ossessions in Xt)rth America should be 
 discussed, ])rovi(led that alt other claims, both of British suhjects and citi- 
 zens (f the t'nifed States, i\v\s\\\<x mxt ol' acts committed during the recent 
 civil war in this country, wer«' similarly referred to the same Commis- 
 sion."' .Mr. Fish, in answer to this announcement, «ni the M of I'ebruary, 
 1871, after citing the exact terms of Sir 10. Thornton's letti-r, expressed 
 the salisl'action with which the Tresident "had received the intelli- 
 gence that ICarl (Iranville had authorized him to slate that Her ]\Iajes- 
 ty's (loveinnuMit had acce])te(l the views of the I'nited Stares (lovern- 
 ment as to the disposition to be made o\' Ihe so-called '■Alabama^ claims;" 
 and that "if there be other and further claims o/" />/v7/.s7( siibjirls or of 
 American citizens growing out of acts eommittccl during the recent civil 
 war in this country lie assents to the i)ropriety of their reterence to the 
 same Jligh ('ommission."' 
 
 Mr. I'ish, therefore, and Sir E. Thornton agreed in describing, by the 
 several tbrins of exi)ression, ^'' the claims (icnericalty Icnoien as the '•Ala- 
 name of the '■ AlahavuV 
 
 
 ibj . 
 
 I>!l 
 
 ielaims," "■the ^Alabama' ctaimN,"' and "//a' so-called '•Alabama'' claims," 
 
 
Yr >. 
 
 40 
 
 
 ,'■'•' - 
 
 
 COKRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 I . j 
 
 |i"« 
 
 OHO and tlic sainc snbjoct-mattt'r. What this was is proved, not only 
 by the i)r('vi()ns nso of the same or similar terms, bnt also by the tact' 
 that, if these words had been now intended to include indefinite ])nblic 
 or national claims of the United States (Tovernment aji'ainst (ireat Bri- 
 tain, and not merely those claims for diicct losses which Innl been ])re- 
 vionsly i)reseiited oi- notified, and any others epindem (jencri.s, it must of | 
 necessity have followed (according to the snjjs'estions which had been 
 nnnh' by INFr. Iteverdy Johnson, and afterward by Mr. ^Motley) that any 
 counter claims which the (lovernnu'nt of (ireat liritain miyht have 
 thought lit to advance, on i)ublic or national fjrounds, against the (irov- 
 eminent of the United States, must have been in like manner ])rovide(l 
 for. But the only other claiais i)rovided for were those of subjects of 
 Great Britain and citizens of the United States. 
 
 Ill strict conformity with this view. Lord Granville, when enuniera- ' 
 tinji" in his iiistru(;tions to I[er Majesty's Hij^h Cominissioiu'rs (l>th Feb- 
 ruary, 1S71) the i)riiicipal subjects to which their attention would be 
 directed, described these claims as "the claims on ac(U)unt of the Ala- 
 bama, Shenandoah, and certain other cruizers of the so-styled Confed- 
 erate States;"' say ins' "Underthis head a'n^ comi)rised the (claims against 
 Great Britain for damaji'es sustained by the depiedations of the Alabama, 
 Shenandoah, and Georjiia, the vessels whi(!h were furnished on account 
 of tli(> Coiiicdeiate States, and armed outside of British jurisdiction, 
 and the I'lorida, whitih, thoufih built in England, was armed and 
 e(jnipped in the jxn't of j\[obile." 
 
 The same, or the equivalent words, therefore, as often as they are 
 used in the Protocols of I' (Commissioners and in the Treaty of 
 AVashington itself, ought, ujm.u ordinary principles of construction, to 
 be understood as bearing the same sense. And this seems to be made 
 more clear by the exclusion from the reference of any claims of this 
 country <>r ol' the i)eople of Cana<la, on account of the proceeding of 
 the Fenians in the United States. There might ceitainly have been 
 national claims of (ireat liritain arising out of those proceedings, (in 
 addition to any particular losst-s by Canailian subjects,) which could not 
 ])ossibly hav(^ been excluded on any just or intelligil)le jninciple, if in- 
 definite claims for public or national losses had been intended to be left 
 open to the Government of the United States. 
 
 On a careful examination of the language of the Protocols and the 
 Treaty, nothing is found at variance with this conclusion, while very 
 much is found to confirm it. 
 
 The t'WJth Protocol, drawn nj) after the Commissioners had agreed 
 upon all the terms of the Treaty, for the ])uri)osi' of recording (so far 
 as they thought it necessary or desii'able) the histcny of their ])roceed- 
 ings, begins by stating the proceedings at their first conference, on the 
 Stli March, 1.S71. On that occasion the American Commissioners sjioke 
 (1) of the feeling of the United States, "that they had sustained a 
 great wrong, and that great injuries and losses were inflicted ii]»on their 
 commerce and their material interests />// flic course anil coii'liict ol' (Ircitt 
 lir\t<iin tUiriuii tlic recent rchcl I ion in the United iStaten ;" (2) of '■'th'. his- 
 tori/ of llic Aldhanui anil other crni^crs which had been fitted out, or 
 armed, or e(|ui|»i>tMl, or which had received augmentation of force in 
 (ireat Ibitain or in her Colonies, <ni<l of the ojieratioiiK of tho.se vessels, as 
 siioirint/ (A) e.etensire direct losses in the eaptiire and deslrnelion of h 
 hinje UH inker of vessels irith their cariiocs, and in the heavij national c.rpend- 
 iinre in the pnrnnil of the crniicrs ; and (U) indirect injiiri/ in the trans 
 fer if a laific part of the American connnervial marine to the liritish Jlaij, 
 ill the enhanced payments oj insurance, in the prolonyation of the war, and 
 
 in the a<f\ 
 the rel)el\ 
 failure il 
 ;i(.s'//// li<\ 
 preambll 
 the con I 
 course <i\ 
 '•Alabau 
 the natii 
 "shown I 
 spoken << 
 tory" a^. 
 their ten(\ 
 The aI 
 the loss 
 senteil,'' 
 " which 
 not yet 1 
 losses, n 
 which th 
 be ascert 
 the wore 
 always b 
 ernmcnt, 
 eluded 
 then foll( 
 no estim: 
 to tlie ri^ 
 settlemeii 
 Here h 
 for indire 
 Tiie iiu>ai 
 considere 
 (pH'slion 
 known af 
 losses ha< 
 ing it as 
 event of 
 means o 
 "claims" 
 Tiie lie 
 stating t 
 ty"s (Jov 
 then i»roj 
 a sum wl 
 safisfacti 
 are here 
 they met 
 cation"' 
 cable set 
 bv iiny 1 
 'in the 
 ings res 
 to the th 
 "right o 
 ^Alabam 
 
IBITKATION. 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 41 
 
 s proved, jiot only 
 nfc also by the iiic't 
 le indcliiiik' jjiiblie 
 
 sifiiiinstCireiit liii 
 liicli liad bocn pre- 
 
 (j(')ieri.s, it must of 
 IS which had been 
 . Motley) tliat any 
 ritaiii jnif-ht have 
 1, against the (iov- 
 » manner jjrovided 
 ose of subjects of 
 
 e, when eimniera- 
 ssioiK'rs (!)th Feb- 
 tention would be | 
 ieonnt of the Ala- 
 so-styled Confed- 
 the claims a,uaiiist 
 IS of the Alabama, 
 lished on af'count 
 itish Jurisdiction, 
 was armed and 
 
 [iften as they are 
 in the Trenty of 
 f oonstructiou, to 
 seems to be )Ma<le 
 ny claims ol' this 
 he proce(Miiii<i' of 
 tainly have l)eeii M 
 I proceedin.iis, (in 
 which c(»uld not 
 jtiinciple, if in- 
 tended to be left 
 
 I'otoeols and the 
 <ion, whih^ very 
 
 ^•s had a j; reed 
 
 'eordin;^' (so far 
 
 ' their ])roc.eed- 
 
 nleience, on the 
 
 lissioners sjioke 
 
 ad sustained a 
 
 eted upon their 
 
 •ontltift ol' (ii'cnt 
 
 (L') of ^hh' his- 
 
 litted (»ut, or 
 
 ion of for(;e in 
 
 Iho.v rrsscis, as 
 
 IcslnirHnii of (( 
 
 \(itin)i((l (wpi'ud- 
 
 I'!/ ill 111!' iniii.s 
 
 III' llri/iy/i Jta;/, 
 
 ;/■ tlic inir^ <iuit 
 
 ;i 
 
 in the<i(hlitio)i of a lat'fic sum to the cost of the lonr and the mipprcsHioii of 
 the rehcllioii ; and as also showing (O) that Great Britain, by reason of 
 failure in the ju-oper obsorvaiKie of her <luties as a neutral, had become 
 jmtUi liable for the acts of those cniizcrs and their tenders."' So far all is 
 preamble, and as yet there is no mention of claims. General injury to 
 the commerce and material inteiests of the United States, '• bij the 
 eouriic and conduct of Great Britain;'''' direct losses by the captures of the 
 •Ahibama" and similar cruizers, and also (an item now first added) by 
 the natioiutl ejcpenditure in their pursuit ; and indirect ])ublic. injury, 
 "shown by the history of those vessels and their ojjerations," are all 
 spoken of ; but the " ;(Vf/>//<Y.y," expressly inferred from the same "his- 
 tory" against Great Britain, is Vim'iiiid to '■'• the acts of those vessels and 
 their tenders." 
 
 Tile Anu'rican Commissioners then ])roceed to si>eak of ^'thc claims for 
 the loss and destruction of private property irhich had thus far been pre- 
 sented" as anu)uiiting to about l-f,()00,()0() dollars, without interest, 
 " which amount was liable to be greatly increased by claims which had 
 not yet been presented;" and, with resjjcct to the new head of direct 
 losses, now for the first time mentioned, they say that " the cost to 
 which the Government had ))een ])ut in i)ursuit of cruizers could easily 
 be ascertained by certificates of Government accounting oflicers." Here 
 the word "c/«//».s" is used with resjjcct to dire(;t losses only, as it had 
 always been used before, but with notice that direct losses of the (iov- 
 ernment, in ]»ursuit of tiie vessels referred to, are now nu-ant to be in- 
 cluded in that category, as vrell as the losses of private citizens. And 
 then follow the words: "That, in the hope of an amicable settlement, 
 no estimate* was niade of the indire(!t losses, without prejudice, however, 
 to tiie rigid of indeuuiiiicatiou on their account, in the event of no sucli 
 settU'ment being made." 
 
 Here is a clear waivta* of the (assumed) "right of indemniiicatiou" 
 for indirect losses in the event of "an amicable settlement" oeing made. 
 Tlie iiu'aning of the words "an amicable settlen ent" has been alrea<ly 
 considered in the First Part of this ]\Ienu)randum. At present the 
 (pu'stion is as to the meaning of the words "the claims geneiically 
 known as the 'Alabama' claims.''' If no actual claim for these indirect 
 losses had been previously made, it clearly was not made now by treat- 
 ing it as a reserved "right" which would or might be insisted on in the 
 event of no amicable settlenu'iit being arrived at. Still less could it, by 
 means (»f any siudi reservation, be brought within tlie category of 
 "claims" already "geiu'rically known as the "Alabanm' claims." 
 
 Tlu' next step in tlie proceedings corroborates this view. For, after 
 stating their desire for au exi)ression of regret on the i)art of ] ler ^lajes- 
 ty's (io\ernment, which they t»btained, the American Commissioners 
 then propttsed "that the iloint High Commissioners should agree upou 
 a sum wliich should be |)aid by (ireat Britain to the Utiited St;»tes, in 
 saiisfaction of all the claims, and the interest thereon." .1// the claims 
 are here si>okeu of; but it can hardly be possible that, in this pioposal, 
 they nu'ant to include indiri'ct h)sses; because "the light to indemnifi- 
 cation" on that account was only tt> hv asserted in the ev«'iit of no ami- 
 cable settlement being made; nor were these indelinite claims such as, 
 by any possibility, could be regarded as bearing interest. 
 
 In the later jiassages of this Tiotocol, which relate to the i)roceed- 
 ings resulting in the reference to Arldtration, and in the agreenu'iit as 
 to the three " Hules" no trace? occurs of any re;-iirrence to the reserved 
 "right of indemnilicaficai," or to the subject of indirect losses. " T/te 
 ^Alabama' Claims'^ alone are spoken of. 
 
'!''.iy.'ffl 
 
 l-ii. 
 
 Ua 
 
 ilE: 
 
 rpv 
 
 42 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 Ill tlio, Tst Article of tlio Treaty itself, the words '■^ genericaUtj known," 
 &c., so far as they differ from other forms of expression previonsly used 
 in respect of tiie same subject, differ only by defining that subject with 
 gicnter accuracy, so as more pointedly to exclude indirect losses. 
 
 "Cenerically" is an adverb of classification, with reference to the na- 
 ture of the subject-matter itself. Chiims for direct losses, by the acts 
 of a particular class of vessels, or by a definite expenditure for tlie 
 prevention of these acts, are, in their nature, of the same cate;i>ory or 
 genus; and it is the very fact ot their beinj? capable of beinjj directly 
 connected with the acts of those vessels, as an effect with its (!ause, 
 which makes them so. Indirect public losses, to Avhich many con(Hirrent 
 causes may have contributed (as. with respect to those now in question, 
 is clearly demonstrated by Mr. Sumner's speech, and Mr. Thornton's 
 observations upon it, and also by Lord Clarendon's memorandum of tlie 
 Oth November, 18(»'.),) are different in their kind, and open up muclx 
 wider, and wholly difi'erent, fields of inquiry. 
 
 The Vllth and Xth Articles of the Treaty appear also to be irreconcil- 
 able with any other view of the "Claims" referred. The Arbitrators 
 .are to "first determine as to each vessel separately, whether Great Britain 
 has, by any act or omission, iailiHl to fulfil any of the duties," &c.; and 
 " shall certify the fact, as to each of the said vessels. " This incpiiry is 
 addressed, and is limited, to certain imputed "acts or omissions" of 
 this (iountry, not as to any other matters, but as to each, separately, of 
 certain vessels. The Arbitrators, if they should find " that Great Jiritaiu 
 has failed to fulfil any duty or dntiei^ as aforesaid, " have y ivev to ^Um-ard 
 a sum ill yross to be paid by Great Britain to the United States/or all the 
 claims referred.''^ But the power of awar<liii{>' a siuu in }»ioss cannot en 
 large or alter the category of the claims referred, or the scope of the 
 Inquiry; the foundation of su(!u an award must be some |)articular fail- 
 ure of «lnty, considered by the xVrbitrators to have been established 
 against Great Britain, by some acts or omissions as to some particular 
 vessels or vessel; and the sum awarded can oidy be in res[)ect of dam- 
 ages resnltinj^ from such failure of duty, as to such ])articular vessels 
 or vessel. If the Arbitrators shoidd " find that (Jreat Britain has failed 
 to fulfill any duty or duties as aforesa id, ^^ hut do iu)t award a sum in 
 gross, a Board of Assessors is then "to ascertain and <letermine irhat 
 claims are valid and what amount or amounts shall be ])aid by Great 
 Britain to the United States, on account of the liahilit;/ arising from such 
 failure as to each vessel, according to the extent of such liability as 
 decided by the Arbitrators." It seems impossible that power can have 
 been given to the Arbitrators to award a sum in gross for claims not 
 severable as to each vessel, and whi(!h, therefore, the Assessors, when 
 dealing with the case of each vessel in detail, could not entertain or 
 allow. 
 
 II. The second (piestion, viz, what vessels are described by the words 
 " the sevend vessels which have }.:iven rise to theidaimsgeiu'rically known 
 as the 'Alabama claims,'" admits of being more concisely treated. 
 
 Until ^Ir. Seward's desj)atch to Lord Stanley, of the L'Ttli August, 
 ISOll, the "Alal)ama," "Fhu'ida," "(ieorgia," and "Shenandoah"' were 
 the only ])articiilar vessels in respect of wliose acts any claims had been 
 made. With respect to more general complaints of the same character. 
 Mr. Adams, in his letter to Lord Kassell of the 7tli Ai)ril, ISd.'J, referred 
 only to vessels '^'^ supplied from the ports tf the United Kinydom,"" addinir. 
 "So far as I am aware, not a single vessel has been engaged in thesi' 
 depredations excepting such as have been so furnished. Unless, indeed, 
 I might except one or two passenger steamers belonging to luirsons in 
 
 C( 
 
 ew Yor 
 :iiining e 
 
 ^ecapituli 
 only " ///( 
 which a 1 
 aciion of 
 m it ted b\ 
 |ind '■'•the 
 t^eamen, ai 
 eers, a pu. 
 
 Mr. Se\ 
 ftl ready s( 
 eoiniiiitte 
 (Joiih,' an( 
 and Hticd 
 tt(jeney <f 
 and fnrnii 
 ports of 
 the globe 
 
 As the' 
 or fitted-(J 
 the ageiic 
 a casual 
 (through 1 
 of which 
 patch, wa 
 respect of 
 " Shenan( 
 already st 
 correct," t 
 talities in 
 feold to Bi 
 pool. 
 
 As this 
 lion was i 
 armed, e(i 
 been allov 
 British w 
 could be 
 Words *' tl 
 as the Ali 
 chara<'ter. 
 ter"' in tl 
 Seward, 
 can Govei 
 fnc vessc 
 " Chickai 
 ;iiot allege 
 h\ any i)a 
 AppeM<li.\ 
 to be niail 
 ton" and 
 
 It may 
 «tlu^ State 
 •3css than 
 
BITRATION. 
 
 mericallj, known," 
 n previously used 
 
 tliat subject with 
 irect losses, 
 ference to the na- 
 osses, l)y the acts 
 pendituie for the 
 
 same catej^ory or 
 
 of beinji; directly 
 :!t with its (;ause, 
 
 many concnirrent 
 13 now in question, 
 rl Mr. Tliorn ton's 
 morandum of the 
 id open \\\) niucLi 
 
 ^o to be irreconcil- 
 
 Tlie Arbitrators 
 
 ;her Great liritain 
 
 duties," &c.; and 
 
 This incpiiry is 
 
 or omissions" of 
 
 each, separate]!/, of 
 
 hat Great Jiritaiii 
 
 )f ft'er to "rt/<v(>Y/ 
 
 I States /■«)>•«// the 
 
 I j>Toss cannot en 
 the scope of tlie 
 ne particular fail- 
 been established 
 
 some particular 
 
 II respect of dam- 
 particular vessels 
 iiritain has I'ailed 
 
 award a sum in 
 d determine irliat 
 )e ])aid by Gi'eat 
 arhing from such 
 
 such liability as 
 t ])ower can liavo 
 ss for claims not 
 
 Assessors, when 
 
 not entertain or 
 
 bed by the words 
 
 >enerically known 
 
 ly treated. 
 
 he 27th Auynst, 
 
 iienandoah '' were 
 
 ■ (daims had bciMi 
 
 e same (dniracltr. 
 
 ril, 1.S(I.'5, refeiTt'd 
 
 7/i//f/ow," addiiiLT. 
 
 enjia^'cd in these 
 
 . llidess, indeed, 
 
 ing to persons in 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 43 
 
 ew York, forcibly taken possession of whilst at Charleston in the he- 
 ginniny of the war, feebly aruied, antl very quickly rendered useless for 
 any :ij;j>ressive pnri)ose." In his letter of the L'Oth May, 18(55, when 
 recapitulating his former complaints, ho mentioned under this head, 
 oidy "//«; issue from British ports of a number of British vessels," by 
 vhi(di a large amount of American property had been destroyed ; ^^the 
 action of these British built, manwil, and armed vessels ; the ravages com- 
 Biitted l)y armed steamers, Jitted out from the ports of Great Britain ;" 
 J^nd '■'■the issue of all the depredati nr/ vessels from British ports with British 
 :lll/Eamen. and witlt, in all respects hut the presence of a few men acting as offi- 
 cers, a pureli/ British character.'''' 
 
 Mr. Reward, in his despatcdi of the 27th August, ISGO, (as has been 
 ftlrcady seen,) spoke of " depredations upon our commercial marine, 
 
 and furnished, as occasion required, during their devastating career, in 
 ports of the realm, or in ports of British Colonies in uearlv sdl i)arts of 
 the globe." 
 
 As the " Sumter" was (notoriously) not built, manned, armed, equipped, 
 or fittedout in any British port, or despatched therefrom by or through 
 the agency of any British subjects, Lord Staidey thought that this was 
 a casual and unintentional error, and i)ointed it out to Mr. Seward 
 (through Sir F. Bruce) as su(di ; especially as the "Georgia," in icspect 
 of whiidi vessel particular claims were scheduled to 3[r. Seward's des- 
 patch, was Tiot name<l therein ; while no such claims were scheduled in 
 ;^espcct of the " Sumter" or of any other ships, excei)t the " Alabama," 
 I*' Shenandoah," " Georgia," and " Fhnida." Mr. Seward, as has been 
 ■already seen, justilied himself (12th Janimry, 1807) as " substantially 
 correct," on the ground that the "Sumter" had received certain hospi- 
 talities in the British ports of Trinidad and Gibraltar, and had been 
 feold to British subjects at Gibraltar and afterwards received at Liver- 
 ;J)ool. 
 
 As this was the first occasion, so it was also the last, on which men- 
 tion was nnide of any ship or ships, not alleged to have been fitted-out, 
 arnu'd, e(piipped, or manned in any liritish port, but which had mer^dy 
 been allowed to receive limited sui)plies of coal or other necessaries in 
 British waters, as coming within the category of vessels whose acts 
 could be made the foundation of (daims against Great Hritain, The 
 w (U(ls " the vessels which have given rise to the (daims generically known 
 as the Alabama Claims" cannot possibly be extended to vessels of this 
 charaidcr, unless it be on the ground of this one mention of the " Sum- 
 ter " in tlie context which has been cited in these two letters of VLw 
 Beward. In the "Case," however, presented on the i)arf ot the Ameri- 
 can (iovernment under the Tieatv, danmges are (daimed in resj)ect of 
 five vessels ("SumtiM-," " Nashvill(>," "'Retribution," "Tallahassee," 
 " Chi(d<amauga "'), whi(di were in every sense American ; and whicdi are 
 Jiot alleged to ha\e been built, litted-out, armed, e(iuii)ped, or nmnned 
 in any part of the Uritish dominions; and in the 7th V'ohune of the 
 
 ^.. i«.>^i !»»»•-». .!■•. itii fl'ftiLii-tii \i\r 111 I ■ 1 i\/iio ^ (iii\t III iiiv fill T ^/iiiiii\ ytv. LlIU 
 
 Ai)pendix to that "Case," further (daims of the like character api)ear 
 to be made in respect of the acts of two other similar vessels, ( " Bos- 
 ton" and " Sallie.") 
 
 It may be here observed that, by the getieral list of (daims fil(>d in 
 the Srate Deparlmcnt of the United States, besides these vessels, m)t 
 less than eight other American ships ("Calhoun," "Echo," " Jetl 
 
'A'-' 
 
 u 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 ^ 
 
 >1:{I» 
 r 
 
 If- 
 
 1 
 
 f '.. 
 
 
 u 
 
 Diivi.s," "Lai)\vinj>," '' Savannah," '' St. Nicholas," " Wiiislow,'' '• York") 
 in resi)e(;t of wlio.sii acts no chiim is now niado ajjainst ilcr Majesty's 
 Govciiiinent, ai)i)ear to have becMi also engaged in belliincirent naval 
 operations on the ])ait of the Confedeiate States, which resulteil in tiie 
 destruction of ships and other property belonging to citizens of the 
 United States. 
 
 When Lord Stanley (24th May, 1807) si)oke of " the proceedings of the 
 'Alabania' and vcsseln of that c'/«.s.v," and (10th September, 18(57) of 
 '' claims arising out of the depredations of the ' xVlabama,'"' and "o/ 
 rcsseitt of the like character ;'' when Mr. Iteverdy Jolinson (L*,"»th Marcli, 
 1800) si)oke of the possible public claim of the United States Govern- 
 ment, as resulting ((Hf6T a/m) "from Wm Jitthuj out of the '■Alabama' 
 anil other nmilar vessels in Her Majestfs ports, and from their permitted 
 entrance into other ports;" when Mr. Fish (U.jth Sei)tember, 180'J) spoke 
 of tlie destruction of American citizens " bi/ rebel crnizers fitted out in 
 the ports of Great Britain,'' and injury '' by sufferin;/ the fittiiKj oat of rebel 
 cruizers, or by the HuppUj of ships, arms, munitions of war to the Con- 
 federates;" when iMr. .Motley (L'ad October, 180'J) spoke of "the 
 destruction of American commerce h;/ criiizers of British oriyin carryiii;,' 
 the insurgent Hag;" it is clear that they did not include, or mean to 
 include, as if belonging to one and the same category of vessels, shifts 
 allegcHl to bo of British origin, aud ships of American origin, witii tlie 
 litting-out or equipment of which JJritish subjects had been iu no 
 ■way con<!erned. 
 
 In Lord Granville's instructions to Iler Majesty's High Commission- 
 ers, it is also plain that the former class of vessels alone is couteuiplated. 
 In the narrative of the proceedings of the Sth March, 1871, contained in 
 the ^iOth Protocol, it seems ecpially clear that the United States Coiii- 
 luissioners had also the same class of vessels in view; for they* spoke of 
 "f/<6' historif of the ^Alabama'' and other craizers which luid been fitted out, 
 or armed , or equipped, or which had received augmentation of force in Great 
 Britain or ih her colonies;'''' and they expressed a hope "that the British 
 Commissioners would be able to ]>laoe upon record an expression of 
 regret by Her Majesty's CJovernment i'or the de[)re(hitions (iommitted by 
 the vessels whose acts were now under discussion.''^ Her Majesty's Coiu- 
 missioners (on a later day) replied "that th(\v were authorized to ex- 
 press, in a friendly spirit, the regret felt by Her Majesty's Governuu'iit 
 for the escape, under whatever circumstances, of the '■Alabama'' and other 
 vessels from British ports, and for the depredations committed by them ;" 
 which exiu'ossion of regret was accepted by the Auierican Commissiou- 
 ers "as very satisfactory." 
 
 In the lirst Article of the Treaty itself, the expression of ller Majesty's 
 regret, in these identical words, immediately precedes the agreement of 
 reference by which the claims referred are described as '■'■(jrowiny out of 
 acts committed by the ((foresaid vessels.''^ 
 
 Tiie necessary conclusion appears to bo that the vessels intended to 
 be referred to in the Treaty were only such as could, in good faith, be 
 alleged to have been fitted out, or armed, or ecpiipped, or to have re 
 ceived an augmentation of force in vsonie part of the British dominious— 
 the three Ilules in the Vlth Article of the Treaty being, of course, 
 material to be regarded in determining ,U1 questions of I'act in any case 
 alleged to be of this nature. The "Sumter," "Xashville," and other 
 ships above mentioned have never been aUeged to conn; within any of 
 the terms of tiiis descrijttion, unless, iiuleed, it is now meant to be said 
 that the permission to any Conl'ederate vessel to obtain, in a British port, 
 such limited supplies of coal as were permitted to both the belligereut 
 
 CO 
 
 Parties b^ 
 »augm(Mi 
 Second U 
 HI. Th 
 lcri!>ed 1>, 
 \y the afn 
 being tli 
 titration 
 Jlusioiis 
 rords ••< 
 lot, with 
 Icnse, ''-e 
 ]ny i)arti( 
 :'g('d to 
 !l^i;iiitime 
 foice b(d( 
 Ibitain 
 ter and 1 
 jprociu'cd 
 Itill hidd 
 In nuMilte 
 losses wer 
 
 "Thecl 
 jBcd as fol 
 
 "1. Tlie 
 yesscds an 
 
 "2. The 
 i ";i. TIte 
 the r.iitisl 
 ' " !. The 
 - ",-». The 
 the cost ol 
 \ "Soliir 
 Committed 
 Cdiupensal 
 Bl;ites"Ca 
 
 Mr. Fisl 
 Supposed. 
 })ly.- by > 
 tlie chiini 
 tlicieloie, 
 bf th- evil 
 led to thi! 
 Oeciuate i 
 gesi the a 
 « From tl 
 V tlu" ical 
 
 (his lime 
 (1'ensive ( 
 ors iii'e a( 
 |)ught not 
 %her(div ei 
 
 hot' 
 
ilTRATION. 
 
 'iiislow," "York") 
 list Her Majesty \s 
 belligerent niival 
 :;h resiiltetl in the 
 to citizens of the 
 
 |)rocee(lin}isof tlip 
 >teinber, 1807) of 
 haniii,"' and "o/" 
 son (L'.'itli .Aliirdi, 
 d States Govern- 
 of the ' Ahihidua' 
 an their permitted 
 niber, icS(iU) spoke 
 'liters fitted out in 
 Jlttiiuj oat of rcbd 
 ■ war to the Con- 
 I spoke of "tlie 
 'sh oriifui carrying' 
 hide, or mean to 
 ) of vessels, ships 
 I origin, with the 
 had been in no 
 
 ligh Commission- 
 e is contemplated, 
 1871, contained iu 
 nited States Com- 
 
 for they spoke of 
 icui been fitted out, 
 n of fon-L in Great 
 
 "tliat the British 
 
 an expression of 
 ons committed tnj 
 
 r Majesty's Com- 
 antliorized to ex- 
 sty's Government 
 Uihama'' and other 
 imitted by thvin ;" 
 ican Commission- 
 
 1 of Her Majesty's 
 the agreement of 
 s '■'■(jroioimi out of 
 
 ssels intended to 
 in good faith, be 
 d, or to have re 
 itish dominions- 
 being, of course, 
 f fact in any case 
 iville," and other 
 ne within any of 
 meant to be said 
 , in a British port, 
 h the belligerent 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 45 
 
 parties by Her IVIaJesty's regulations ought to be deemed an improper 
 'augnuMitation of the force" of such vessel within the meaning of the 
 lecond I'ule. 
 
 Ill, The solution of the third question, viz., what claims are de- 
 scribed by the words "<f// the mid clfiims, groirinfj out of acts committed 
 \il the aforesaid vessels, and (jenerieallij knoH'n as the Alabama elaims,^^ 
 "being the words in which tlie subject-matter of the reference to ar- 
 bitration agreed upon is defined,) has been anticipated by the con- 
 lusioiis already arrived at. It may be added, howevei', that the 
 Fords "growing out of acts committed In/ the aforesaid vessels" can- 
 jot, without fondng them altogether beyond their fair and natural 
 jense. be applied to (daims for indire(;t losses, not resulting iroiu 
 ]ny i)articular acts committed by any particular ship or ships, but al- 
 lied to result (so far as they may be referable a^ '-ill to naval or 
 Jiaiitime causes) from the very exist<Mice on the high seas of a naval 
 irce b(donging to the (■onfederate States, and recognized by {ireat 
 t'ritain and (^ther neutral Powers as having a belligerent idiarac- 
 |er and belligerent rights. If the (Confederate States had, in fact, 
 
 f" rocuied all their craizers from Jiritish sonnies, this criti(dsm would 
 till liold good ; much more when several (in fact a considerable majority 
 an niiMilter) of the cruizers actually employed by them, and by which 
 Josses were inflicted on United States (dtizeiis, were otherwise procured. 
 
 PART in. 
 
 On the Amount of the Claims for Indirect Losses. 
 
 ''The (daims as stated by the American Commissioners may be das.si- 
 ficd as follows: 
 
 "I. The (daims for direct losses growing out of the destruction of 
 'Vess(ds and tiieir cargoes by the insurgent ci'ui/ers. 
 
 ''L*. The national expenditures in the pursuit of those cruizers. 
 ' ".".. 'fhe loss in the transfer of tlu^ American commercial marine to 
 the lUitish flag. 
 
 " !. The enhanced jjayments of insurance. 
 
 •'.->. The pndongation of the war and the a(^diti(Mi of a large sum to 
 the cost of the war and the supiuession of the rtdjcllion. 
 ' '"So lar as these vaiious losses and exjxMiditui'es grew out of the acts 
 committed by the se\('ral cruizers, the United States are entitled to ask 
 compensation and remuneration therefor ludbre this Tribunal." — (United 
 Btates' Case, p. dOD.) 
 
 iMr. l'ishol)ser\('s that "an extravagant measure of damages" has been 
 
 iiil)posed, not only by the liritish press, but also, " nu)st unaccounta- 
 )ly." by some of the statesmen of this country, to be sought through 
 he claim for compensation on account of indirect damages. It will, 
 tlicndoie, be w(dl to present, from United States' authority, s 'Uie part 
 of the cviden('e which, in the absence of explanation or retra(dion, has 
 ied to this concepti(»ii. Cndoulttedly the Case (p. 17<>) dis(daims an 
 hcciuate estimate; but it supplies materials wlii(di cannot tail to sug- 
 gest tlu' approi)riate con(d)ision. Tlu\v are as Ibllows: 
 < I'rom the d(h of .July, 18(i;>, (ireat ibitain is declared to have been 
 I' the real author of the woes" of the American peojjle, (p. 17!».) I'rom 
 lliis lime "tint war was pndonged for the jjiirpose " of maintaining 
 jblfensive o[)erati(»us "thnuigh the cruizers," [iliid.) And the Arbitra- 
 tors are accordingly called upon " to dtdermine whether Great Britain 
 })ught not in e(piity to reimburse to the United States the ex])ense3 
 Ihendty entailed upon them," {ibid.) On all these points, the Ca:;;' pro- 
 
 dP 
 

 ry 
 
 'i. i 
 
 t. ; 
 
 f' 
 
 
 r ^ 't 
 
 4 
 
 \i- 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 ■(':(. 
 
 • fi . ^ ', s' " 
 
 46 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 ceeds to state, the evidence " will enable tlie Tribunal to ascertain and 
 determine the amount." To this amount interest is to be added up to 
 the day when the compensation is pa,vai)Ie, within twelve months alter 
 the award, (i>. 4S0,) The rate of interest in New York is 7 i)er cent., 
 {ibid.;) and ''the United kStati^y make a claim for interest at that rate" 
 from 1st July, 1803, "as the most equitable day." The interest, there- 
 fore, is to be charged at 7 per cent, for a period of from ten to eleven 
 years. 
 
 It nuiy be presumed to be incapable of disi)ute that more than half 
 the expenses of the war were incurred after the 1st July, 1803. What 
 Avas the sum total of those expenses? Upon tliis jtoint there is, in a 
 form generally if not precisely ap|)ro])riate, ollieial evidence from 
 America. Jn the Kei)ort of the Special Comnussiouer of the llevenne 
 for 18<i!), (]). vi,) they are stated at {>,()l)r»,(H)(),()0() dollars, including 
 l,iJOO,0(H>,()(K) dollars for the suspension of industrv. Of this amount 
 2,7()(),()00,()(»0 are set (h)wn to the Confederates. 
 
 Thus it appears that the Case does nol go beyond the truth (so far 
 as this head of damage is concerned) in stating that the xVrbitrators 
 would lind the materials sulliciently supi»lied for estinuiting the amount 
 which "in equity" Great Britain ought to pay. It may indeed be said 
 that the anu)unt, suggested by the passages and facts to which refer- 
 ence is nnule, forms an incredible demarul. But, in perusi-ig and exam- 
 ining this Case, the business of Her Majesty's Government has been to 
 deal, not with any absti-act rule of credibility, but with actual, regular, 
 and formal ])leas, stated and lodged against Great Britain on behalf of 
 one of the greatest nations of the earth. Is it, then, "most unaccounta- 
 ble," in view of the evidence as it stands, that the press and that states- 
 men of this c(uiutry should have formed the idea that "an extravagant 
 measure of damages" was sought by the Government of the United 
 States ? 
 
 It appears from the desi)atch of AFr. Fish that no such idea Inis ever 
 been entertained by that Government. Having this authentic assurance 
 so supi»lied, it may be deen»ed little nuiterial to inquire whether on this 
 important nnitter the language of the Case has been misunderstood by 
 Her Majesty's Goveruaient, or whether it is now disavowed. If, how- 
 ever, it has been misconstrued, the misconstruction undoubtedly has not 
 been confined to England, but has been largely shared by writers on 
 the Continent of Europe. 
 
 Were thisGovernnunit indeed prepared to acquiesce in the submission 
 of these claims, it wouhl still remain to ask in what way the Govern- 
 ment of the United States proposed to guard against the acceptance by 
 the Arbitrators of those enormous estimates which, taken without 
 authoritative comment, the language of the Case suggests. But it is 
 scarcely necessary to observe that the question of more or less in this 
 matter is entirely distinct from the (juestion of principle on which the 
 statements and arguments of Her Majesty's Government are founded. 
 
 [Inclosuie '.i iu No. i:?.] 
 
 General Schencic to Earl Granville. 
 
 Legation o. tiil: United States, 
 
 London, 2lst March, 1872. 
 My Lord : At a very late hour last night I received Your Lordship's 
 note of the date of yesterday, informing me that you had laid before 
 
 C( 
 
 iyour coll 
 fof wliicli 
 I have 
 la memon 
 Iwliich y( 
 Inuuiicatii 
 IStates, ni 
 lAIajesty's 
 them to 
 la waiver 
 llaviii} 
 with pie 
 to i)romo 
 laud beiuf 
 linvitatioi 
 jtliey shou 
 Icontainet 
 [were puri 
 jany contr 
 [the Uniti 
 Your L 
 |the whoh 
 ivisions of 
 Itheir claii 
 [for your 
 I is sought 
 And Y< 
 I argument 
 meat that 
 elusion wl 
 I which yon 
 This coi 
 [hold that 
 [Geneva tt 
 i forward h 
 Almost 
 Lordship' 
 i I nniy be 
 , mail stea 
 •| acknowle( 
 i hasten to 
 I the least 
 I may be tl 
 I 1 have 
 
 I The Kii 
 
 I Have > 
 ' without I 
 - lieceivi 
 
 ■I- 
 
TITRATION. 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 47 
 
 1 to ascertain and 
 to be added up to 
 elve months after 
 rk is 7 per cent,, 
 'rest at that rate'' 
 he interest, there- 
 roui ten to eleven 
 
 at more than half 
 uly, J 803. Wliat 
 :)int there is, in a 
 \l evidence from 
 ■r of the llevenne 
 dollars, including 
 Of this amount 
 
 the truth (so far 
 t the Arbitrators 
 lating the amount 
 ay indeed be said 
 ts to which refer- 
 rusi-!^ and exam- 
 imeut has been to 
 h actual, regular, 
 itain on behalf of 
 most unaccounta- 
 is and that states- 
 "an extravagant 
 nt of the United 
 
 ich idea has ever 
 thentic assurance 
 i whether on this 
 nisunderstood by 
 vowed. ]1', how- 
 oubtedly has not 
 d by writers on 
 
 u the submission 
 way the (Jovern- 
 le acceptance by 
 
 taken without 
 ■ests. But it is 
 
 or less in this 
 »le on which the 
 t are founded. 
 
 S'I'ATES, 
 
 t March, 1872. 
 iTour Lordship's 
 had laid before 
 
 four colleagues the copy of Mr. Fish's despatch to me of the 27lh ultimo, 
 >f which 1 furnished you a copy on the l4th instaat. 
 I have also received, at half |)ast four o'clock to-day, a printed co'py of 
 lii memorandum, which you refer to in the note as being enclosed, and 
 |-\vliich you request to have read and considered as part of that com- 
 Inuuiication, being intended, as you inform me, to explain to the United 
 [states, more fully than can be done in the form of a letter, and as iler 
 piajesty's Government is anxious to do, the considerations which caused 
 them to hold the belief at the time of the ratification of the Treaty that 
 |a waiver had been made of the claims for indirect damages. 
 
 Having informed me that Her Majesty's Government, recognizing 
 [■with i>leasure the assurance of the I'resident that he sincerely desires 
 to i)romote a firm and abiding friendship between the tsvo countries, 
 laud being animated by the same spirit, gladly avail themselves of the 
 {invitation whi(;li you say my (Government appears to have given, that 
 Itliey should state the reasons which induce them to make the declaration 
 [contained in your note of the .'?d ultimo, you add that tiu)se reasons 
 Kvere puri)0sely omitted at that time in the hoi)e of obtaining, without 
 [any controversial discussion, the assent thereto of the Government of 
 [the United States. 
 
 Your Lordship then proceeds, in reply to Mr. Fish's note, to discuss 
 
 [the whole <piestion of the right of the United States, under the pro- 
 
 [visions of the Treaty, to put forward in their Case juesented at Geneva 
 
 their claims for indirect losses and damages, and to state the grounds 
 
 for your denial of such right and the arguments by which that denial 
 
 [is sought to be sustained. 
 
 And Your Lordship closes this full and long statement of views and 
 I arguments by expressing the conlident feeling of Her Majesty's (Jovern- 
 inieiit that they have laid before the President ample proof that the con- 
 clusion which was announced in your note of the od of February, and be 
 I which you thiidv it is hardly necessary to say they adhere, cannot be shaken. 
 Tiiis conclusion I understand to be that " Her Majesty's Government 
 (hold that it is not within the province of the Tribunal of Arbitration at 
 [Geneva to decide ui)on the claims for indirect losses and injuries put 
 forward by the United States." 
 
 AluKvst every moment of available time since the receipt of Your 
 Lordship's note has been occupied with the copying of it, in order that 
 I maybe able to transmit it in time to overtake at Queenstown the 
 mail steamer which leaves Liverpool today. I therefore make my 
 I acknowledgment of the delivery of your communication brief, and 
 hasten to forward it to my Government at home, that it may have, with 
 the least possible delay, the attention and answer from there which it 
 may be thought to re(iuire. 
 1 have the honor to be, verv respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 ' KOBT. C. SCHE^XK. 
 The Right Honorable the Earl Granville, tbc, tt'c, do. 
 
 No. 14. 
 
 General Schcncl- to Mr. Fish. 
 
 [Telegram.] 
 
 London, l*^ April, 1872. 
 rou any objection to British Government hling Counter-Case, 
 [)rejudice to their position in regard to consequential damages? 
 ed at 9.40 a. m. 
 
 Have ,v 
 
 i without prejud 
 
 Received at 9.40 a. m 
 
 m 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
i : 
 
 \f . 
 
 m-:' 
 
 48 CORRESPONDENCK RESPECTINQ GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 No. 1.-.. 
 
 Mr. Fish to (leneral Schenck, 
 [Tck'j^niin.] 
 
 Wasiiinoton, April 2, 1.S72. 
 We tiii(l(M'.st:iiii(l tliP IJritisli (roVfriiiiKMit is bound to lilo (Jomitcr-Case, 
 and t!i;il their sd doiiij^ will not id'cjiidico any jtositiou tlicy lia\o taken, 
 lior ali'ei't any position of this (TOVCM-nment. Tiie vijj;hts of both i)aities 
 will be tiie siuin; after tiliiijf as before. 
 Is the iiKiuiry made at their re(inest ^ 
 
 li." f 
 
 
 
 mm 
 
 
 
 is , 
 if 
 
 Xo. 10. 
 Mr. Fish to General Sehenel: 
 
 Xo. 181.] 
 
 J)KPA1{'J MKNT OF StATI:, 
 
 Wdshiiiiiton, April 1(J, 1872. 
 
 Snt : I have given very ciireful attention to the note of the 20tli 
 March, addressed to you by ICiirl (Jr;inville, i)rol'essing to state the 
 re;isons which induced lltn- >ri\jesty's (Toverunient to make the declara- 
 tion contained in i'lis j»revious note to you of .'id February, that, in tlio 
 opinion of I fer Majesty's (ioverninent it is not within the i)rovince ot' 
 the Tribunal of Arbitration at (rciieva to decide U|)on tlie claims for 
 iiulire(!t losses ami injuries i)ut forwanl in the (Jaseof the United States. 
 
 His Lordshij) declares this statement to be made upon the invitation 
 which this Government ap[)ears to have j^iven. I should r<'j;ret that 
 what was intended only as a courteous avoidance of the nnked i»resentn- 
 tion of a directly opposite opinion to that which had been expressed on 
 behalf of the British (Government, unsustained by any reasons, should 
 have subjected His Lordshii) to the necessity of .an elaborate rei)Iy. it 
 was not the desire of this (Jovernment to invite any controversial dis- 
 cussion, nor have they now any wish to enter upon or continue such 
 dis(aission. 
 
 yome remai'ks, however, appear in the note of His Lm-dshij) which 
 seem to require a reply. 
 
 It opens with a seemiufi; denial of the jiccuracy of my assertion that 
 claims for indirect losses and injuries are not put forward for the tirst 
 time in the " ('ase" presented by this (lovernment to tln^ Tribunal at 
 Geneva — that for years they have been ])rominently and historically i)art 
 of the ''Alabama claims" — and that iiu'ident.d or conseijuential danui.u'es 
 were oi'ten mentioned asinclude(l in the accountability. 
 
 It cannot besu])i)osed that His Lordship intends nu)re than to say that 
 the claims for indirect or national losses and injuries were not " fornui- 
 lated" l)y this Goveriunent, and the amount thereof set forth in detail 
 and as a sp('cili(; (h'mand, I'or he admits that on tht^ 2()th Xovember, 
 180J, within a few weeks after t!ie ''Alal)ama" had set out on her 
 careei' of |)illa,;;'e and (histruction, .AEr. Adams suii'^'csted the liability of 
 Great IJritaiu for losses other than those of individual sulferers. In his 
 ]U)te ol" that <late to Lard Russell, .Ur. Adams stated that he was in- 
 structed by his (Government to '• solicit redress for the nationul and 
 private injuries already thus sustaiiu'd." 
 
 On the l!»th Februaiy, LStJ.), Mr. Seward instructed Mr. Adams that 
 " this (lovernment doos not think itself bound injustice to relin<iuish its 
 
UITRATION. 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 49 
 
 N, April 2, ISTli. 
 lil(i C'Diiutcr-Oiise, 
 I tlicy liav(^ taken. 
 its ot' both piiitics 
 
 F Static, 
 
 , April 1(5, 1872. 
 
 note of tiip L'Oth 
 iSiii<4' to sti)t«» the 
 make the dcclaia- 
 iiiary, that, in tlio 
 11 tlic pi'oviiK'o of 
 toil tli(> claims for 
 tlic Llnircd States, 
 poll tlic invitation 
 Klionhl vcjiTct that 
 (' naked jncsenta- 
 en expressed on 
 reasons, shoulfl 
 )orate iei)ly. It 
 ontroversial dis- 
 or coiitinne sueli 
 
 s Lordship wiiicli 
 
 ly assertion that 
 
 vard lor the tirst 
 
 th(^ Tribunal at 
 
 liistoiically i)arl: 
 
 jnential daiiia;^es 
 
 than to say that 
 ere not '' torniii- 
 t forth in detail 
 -'0th November, 
 set out on her 
 I tlie liability of 
 iilferers. In his 
 that he was in- 
 10 natiiiHdl and 
 
 Mr. Adams that 
 to reliiKinish its 
 
 llaiins for redress for t ho injuries which hn\e remilted J'roni the Jiftiutj 
 hit and despatch of the Alabama in a liritish porV 
 
 As the ('on.seciuenees of this littinj^' out be;>jin to develop tlitm. jlvea, 
 \\\{\ their ett'eets in enconra;;!!!}; the rebellion be(;aine manifest, Mr. 
 idaiiis, in an interview with Jionl llu.s.sell, indieated them (as de- 
 Iciibed by the latter in a letter to Jjord Lyons tinder date of L'7th March, 
 ]S().'j) as "a manifest conspiracy in thi.s country (Clreat Jiritain) to i>ro- 
 |uee a state of exa.speratioii in Aineri(!a, and thus brinj-' on a war with 
 iieat liiitain, a'ith a vicu'' to aid the Confederate eaase.^^ 
 
 Ill a note dated ^V|)iil 7, l.S(i;"i, addressed to Lord Uu.ssell, Mr. Adams, 
 [iter com|)laininy' of the hostile policy, ])ursuant to which the criiiser.s 
 iere iitted out, says, '-that policy 1 trust 1 need not point out to Your 
 lionlship is Nubfitantially the dent ruction of the whole mercantile narii/ation 
 \clo)i(/in(/ to the peoide of the United tStaten.''^ " It may thus be fairly 
 Issuiiied as tru<i that Great Britain, an a national Power, is, in point of 
 \t(t,/a.st actiuirin;/ the entire maritime commerce of the United iSlates.'''' 
 
 Tliat Lord IJus.sell regarded this as the foundation of a claim for dani- 
 Les for the transfer of the commercial marine of the United States to 
 [he tia«' of Great IJritain is api)arent, in his reply to Mr. Adams, under 
 late of 3Liy 4, 1805, when lie says: "1 can never atlniit that the duties 
 M Cheat IJritain toward the United States are to be measured by thelos.ses 
 rhieli the trade and commerce of the United States may have sustained." 
 
 A^aiu, on the L'Oth May, 1805, Mr. Adams, writing to Lord Jius.sell, 
 listiiictly names indirect or con.se<iuential los.ses. His laufiuajie is, "that, 
 
 addition to this direct injury, the action of these liritish-bnilt, manned, 
 |iul armed vessels has had the indirect ellect of driving'' from the 
 lea a larf;e portion of the commercial marine (►f the United States, and 
 |() a c(nrespoiiding' extent enlarging' that of (Jreat Britain ;" that " in- 
 uries thus received are of so grave a nature as in reason and Justice to 
 [onstitute a valid claim for reimration and indemnification.'''' In the same 
 We he says, " the very fact of the admitted rinein the rateti of inn n ranee 
 )n American .ships only brings us once more back to look at the original 
 |ause of all the trouble." 
 
 It is diliicult to imagiue a more definite statement of a purpose to 
 Require indemnification. 
 
 On the 14th February, 180(5, after the presentation of the above-recited 
 ^omplaints, Mr. Seward, writing to !Mr. Adams, said : " There is not one 
 leinber of this Government, and, so far as 1 know, not one citizen of 
 Ibe United States, who expects that this country will waive, in auy 
 kase, the demand that we have heretofore nuule upon the British Gov- 
 krniueut for the redress of wrongs committed in violation of international 
 iw." 
 
 And again, on the 2d May, 1807, Mr. Seward writes to Mr. Adams: 
 
 As the case now stands, the injuries by which the United States 
 re aggrieved are not chiejlif the actual Ionhch NU.stuimd in the several 
 epredations, but the first unfriendly or wrongful proceeding, of which 
 hey are but the couse(pieiices." 
 
 llis Lordship also admits the mention, by Mr. lleverdy Johnson, in 
 March, 1809, of a " claim for national losses," which Lord Clarendon, iu 
 
 paper published in the British Parliamentary Papers, "Xorth 
 
 merica, ^o. 1, 1870," page 18, defines " national indirect, or construct- 
 ive claims ' 
 
 On 15th May, 1809, I instructed Mr. Motley that this Government, in 
 rejecting the recent Convention, abandons neither its own claims nor 
 hose of its citizens." 
 Lord Clarendon, in a despatch of June 10, 1809, to Mr. Thornton, men- 
 4 G A 
 
 m 
 
50 
 
 COKRESPONDKNCE KKSPECTING OKNEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 CO 
 
 I if 
 
 ;,%, 
 
 .,.-11- 
 
 I, ; 
 
 tinned tliiit ]Mr. Motloy Iiiul Jissif-iiccl, iiinoii*; the ennses whicli led to the 
 rejeetioii of tlie Johnsou-lMiireiidoii treaty, tluit the "('onveiitioii Wi\n\ 
 objected to l)eciMis(^ it einhriieed only tlie ehiims of individuals, and had 
 no reference to those »)f the two (lovernnients on each other." 
 
 On L'."»th Sei>tenil)er, ISdO, writing to Mr. Motley, I said: "Thoiinin. 
 ber of ships thns directly destroyed amounts to nearly two hundred, and ^^ 
 the value of tiie jiroperty destroyed to many millions. Imlirccfl!/ the fH I 
 <(tif<'<'( was to iaci'i'iisc the rote of insKnincc in the United States, and to 
 tab; (iiniji from the Cn'ilvd Sttitcs its innnensc fore'Kjn ronimcn'e, (uul fa 
 trttns/cr this to the nuMchant vessels of (Ireat IJiitain." "We <'omplaiii 
 of the destruction of our merchant marine by IJritish ships.'' "Tlic 
 rresideiit is not yet i>r«'pared \o speak of the reparation whii'li h(^ thinks 
 due hji the British (loreriiment for the larfier oeeouut of the vast national 
 iiijiuits it has intlicted on the United States." 
 
 In the same instruction I also wrote what seems pertinent to the pres- 
 ent phase of the (luestion between the two (Jovernments: " When one i| 
 l)owei' demands of i>notherthe redress of alleyxMl wronjis, and the latter 
 entertains the idea of arbitration as the means of settlin;;' the question, 
 it seems iirational to insist that the arbitration shall be a (piaiitied or' 
 limited oiu'." 
 
 Lord Clarendon wrote to Mr. Thornton, on (»th Xovember, IStli), that 
 he was ollicially informed by 'Slv. ]Motley that while th(^ rresideiit at* 
 that tinu' abstaiiu.'(l fron. i)ronouncinj^ on the indemnities du(^ for tlio 
 destruction of piivate i)ro])erty, he also abstained from s])eakinj:' " of the 
 reparation which he thinks due by the Jiritish (lovernment f(»r tlic 
 larijer aevount of the vast national injuries it has intlicted on the 'Jnited 
 Stales." 
 
 Lord Clarendon, in some " obseivations" on my note, (Ti.ue Tiook, 
 North Ameri(;a, >'o. 1, 1870. ])a,ne l.'i et .stv/.,) dwelt at lenjith on my alio 
 ji'ation of national or indirect injuries, and characterized them as 
 '• (7^n'//(.s','' and resisted them as such. And in an instruction to Mr, 
 Thornton, of 12th .January, l.STO, he reco^in/es the pai>er as relating' to 
 the "Alabanui Claims." (Blue Book, Xorth America, No. 1, 1<S7(I, 
 page L'O.) 
 
 It ciiunot bo denied that these ])ubli(! or national ch;ims (now called 
 '• indirect ") were i)rominently before the Senate of the United Stato.s 
 when the Convention of lltli January, lS(ii>, was under advi.sement in 
 that body, nor thit they were sub.seqnently actively canvassed before 
 the peoi»le of both countries, and especially by tlie press of Great 
 Britain. 
 
 It is <M|ually indisputable that in my note to 3Ir. ^NFotley, of Septeiii 
 ber iMth, 1S0!>, to which Lord (Clarendon repli<'d, thei'e was ])resent((l 
 the reparation which the President thou.uht "due by the British (Jov 
 ernment for the vast national injuries it ha<l inflicted on the Unifcil 
 States." 
 
 The otUli Protocol of the Joint Tlifjfh Commission shows that the indl 
 rect losses were distinctly presented to the notice of the British Com 
 missioners in the very b;'^innin^' of the neji'otiations on the subject, ami 
 that they remained nnchallenj'ed to the sij>'nin;i;' of th(> Ticaty. 
 
 At every stage, therefore, of the proceedinj>s, from November, 18(ii!, 
 when ]\Ir. Adams " solicited redress for the national injuries sns 
 tained," to the date of theTreaty, this Government lias kept before that ol 
 Great Britain her assertion of the liability of the latter for what an 
 now termed the " iwhrvet injuries." 
 
 Tli(! President now learns t\)r the first time, and with -surprise, that 
 Uer .Majesty's Government accepted his suggestion that the proposed 
 
 omimssi 
 uriiig til 
 hen. (jriii 
 lavegivci 
 n the till 
 or the mi 
 t is not 
 iovcriiiiir 
 wo (iovc 
 if o// vaiisi 
 'leiiipotci 
 tvliii'h arc 
 ettleinent 
 ettleiiieiit 
 e iiari'owi 
 efereiice, ; 
 nil eld i Ills. 
 The Tie: 
 ut of the 
 iie chiiiiis 
 1 order to 
 roirinu oui 
 iKtwii as 
 iitioii." 
 You can 
 ow put foi 
 ibei'iitioiis 
 U Her .A 
 oiitiiiued 1 
 lid with til 
 lioniton ai 
 snliject of 
 ntlilioldin;^ 
 of Slid 
 b.sciice of ; 
 itlier when 
 lole iiegot 
 The.scclai 
 md with I 
 liciii to tll( 
 rliicli the \\ 
 tiiowii as 1 
 ![>r!iially ob_; 
 the scope of 
 Jiis.sinii, aiK 
 the cnn.sider 
 Hiissioiicfs, 
 <bl'Jcctioii to 
 tilt' chiiiiis (j 
 pintocol as : 
 ^lid among 
 ind injuries 
 ■i 'file positi 
 IFoiiId seem 
 faiiced with 
 io exceiitioi 
 
TITRATION. 
 
 COHREaPONDENCI-: RKSPECTINQ GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 51 
 
 PS which h'd to the 
 ''('oiivcntioii was 
 lividuiils, iind hiid 
 I other." 
 
 siiul: "Tlio mini- 
 ■ two hnii(li«'(], i\ii(l 
 IS. Iiidirfcthf tlic 
 t»'<l States, and to 
 
 I rnnimmr, ami h 
 ," "We <'oniplaiii 
 ish ships.'' '^Tli.. 
 »n which lu^tliinks 
 t' the r((.st national 
 
 I'tinent to the pres- 
 ents: " When one 
 iijis, and the hitter 
 tlinji' the question, 
 
 II be Ji (inaiified or 
 
 veniher, ISO!), thiit 
 the I'resich'nt at 
 mities diu^ Ibi' tlie 
 1 sjieakiii^' " of the 
 )vernnient for the 
 I'ted on the United 
 
 note, (Pjiue llook. 
 lenj>th on my alio 
 icterized them ns 
 nstruction to ^Ir. 
 alter as relatinji' to 
 rica, No. 1, LS70. 
 
 ■li.ijns (now called 
 he United States 
 iler ad\iseinent in 
 canvassed befoic 
 e press of Great 
 
 otlcy, of Septeiu 
 ■re was jtresented 
 the British (Jov 
 on the United 
 
 ows that the indi 
 the British Com 
 n the subject, and 
 
 Treaty. 
 Xovember, ISOl*. 
 n((l injuries sus- 
 v\)f before that of 
 tter for what arc 
 
 ith surprise, that 
 hat the proposed 
 
 'oinims: 
 
 iion shoidd tn^at for " the removal of thediileremies which arose 
 
 rtu^ill^' the rebellion in th»' Lnited States, and whicli liave existed since 
 hen. (jroicinij out of tin: <(cts coinmitted by the several vess«'ls which 
 jiavc^iven ris(^ to the claims jjenerically known as tin* 'Alal)aiiia (Jlaims'" 
 n the lall conlidence tliat no claim would bemadi^ by the United States 
 tor tlic national losses whicrh had been continuously presented. 
 
 Ir is not to be denied that "dilferences" had ari^m between the two 
 loveiiiiiients respectinj;' these (!laims, and the Treaty attests that the 
 wo (lovernnieiits were desirous to provide for amicable settlement 
 ){' (ill <aiisrsi)/ili(f'/')'cn(r,ii]u\ for that purjtosc^ appointed tlieir respective 
 Meiiipoteiitiaiies. It is thusdeclare<i in the outset thai the aj^'reements 
 vliicii are about to be formulated are not intended to be an '• amicable 
 cttleiiient," but are intended, on tlu^ contrary, " /<> })n>>'UU' for ;> speedy 
 ctllenieiit." The subject of the submission in ;• S'>i<-tim Treaty will not 
 >e narrower than the declared object soiinlit to be uccuin|)lislied in the 
 efeii'iice, and that obJ(n;t was declared tolu^the lemo^al of </// vnmplalats 
 nd rlidiiiK. 
 
 Tlie Treaty also attests that theditlerences which had arisen, ///'o/fVHr; 
 )iif of the acts <!ommitted by the several vessels wliich had liiven rise to 
 iie ciaiins t/riifricall!/ known as the Alabama Claims, ,s7/// exist, and that 
 n order to remove and adjust all cotiiplahitx aiifl claims, "■all t\\o claims 
 won-iuij out of tlio ads committed by tlie aforesaid vessels, andf/r/ir/vVvf//// 
 iKMvn as the Alabama (Maims, shall be referred to a Tribunal of Arbi- 
 latioii." 
 
 Ynii can bear witness that not even an intimation of the character 
 low put forward by Earl (Tianville was made at any time diiriii}^ the de- 
 iherations of the , Joint IIi.i>li (.'ommission. 
 
 If Iler 3Iajesty's ('ommii.sioners were appointed, entered upon, and 
 oiitiniied the negotiations with this (lovernment under instructions 
 nd with tlie conviction that the correspondence between Sir Kdward 
 'lioiiiton and myself did not cover, and was not intemU'd to cover, "as 
 subject of nej>'otiation, any claim for indirect or national loss(>s," the 
 ritlilioidin;;' of such instriKitions, and the abstaininj^' from the expres- 
 ' ;; of sucii conviction on their part, was most iinlbrtiinate; and the 
 ibsciice of any dissent or remonstrance aji'ainst this class of tlie claims, 
 litlier wiien first fornially presented to the Commissioners, or diiriii};' the 
 hole ueji'otiation, or in the ]n'otocols, is most lemarkable. 
 Theseciaiiiis were ])resented to tlie Ibitisli Commissionei'sassi>lemnly, 
 bid witii more detiniteness of specilicaTion, than were presented i»y 
 lliiiii to the ximeri(!an Commissioners the claims for allej^^ed injuries 
 licli tlie peojile of Canada were said to have suffered from v.hat was 
 iiowii as the Fenian raids; yet, while the American Commissioners 
 [innally obje<!ted to the claims lor the Fenian raids, as not embraced in 
 le scoi)e of the correspondence which led to the Ibriiuition of the Coni- 
 ; lissioii, and recorded on tiie protocols their iinwilliiinness to enter upon 
 ■ he consideration, each time that they were referred to. the British (Jom- 
 • lissioneis, i'rom the first to the last, took no exception and recorded no 
 i bjcctiou lo the presentation made i>y the American Commissioners of 
 ! he claims (jvik' rica III/ known as the Alabama Claims, whi(;ii stand in the 
 I I'otocol as a '■■ (leniis'^ or class of (.'laiins, conipreheii(lin,ii several species, 
 ' nd aiiion^' them enumerating' six'cilically the claims ibr indiretit losses 
 'i iid injuries. 
 
 ') Tile jiositive exclusion liy the protocol of one class of claims advanced 
 I rould seem to be coiiclusive of the non-exclusion of the other (;lass ad- 
 anced with <>reater detiniteness and precision, but with respect to which 
 exception was taken, and no dissent recorded. 
 
I 
 
 1)9 
 
 62 
 
 corrp:spondence respecting geneva arbitration. 
 
 It is (linicult to reconcile tlie elaborate line of argnuient put forward 
 by Earl (iranvilie to show a waiver of claims for indirect losses, with 
 the idea that at the outset of the negotiations Her Majesty's Govern- 
 ment (lid not consider the matter of public or national injuries as the 
 basis of an outstanding claim against (Jreat Jiritain on the part of the 
 United States. 
 
 If these claims had (as Lord (Iranville's note implies, even if it does 
 not assert) no existence in fa(^t, and had never been "notified" or pre- 
 sented, and were not within the jurisdiction of the .Joint High Commis- 
 sion, why is so much stress laid U[»on tlieir assumed relin<piishnient? 
 
 If, on the other hand, they had existence in fact, if they had (as 
 the references which I have made to a corresjjondence extending 
 over a long series of years establish, I think, beyond the possibility 
 of doubt) l)een frcipuMitlj' and i)ersistently presented and notified to 
 the British (iovernnsent, why is not their iiositive exclusion from the 
 reference to the arbitration sliown i AV':y should an important class oi' 
 claims, measured in their ]»ossibilities, according to the estimate of the 
 British press, by fabulous amounts, be left to an inferential exclusion ? 
 
 What interest, upon Lord Granville's theory, could Great Britain have 
 i;i the proposed ai)andonment of such claims, or why oiler any consid- 
 eration therefor ? 
 
 How can Her Majesty's Government contend, at the same moment, 
 that the jireliminary correspondence excluded the indirect or national 
 losses, and that the possibility of admitting such claims as a subject of 
 negotiation had never been entertained l>y Great Britain, and on the 
 other hand that they offered and considered the "amicable settlement" 
 of the treaty, with its ex])ressions and its recognition of certain rules, 
 as the consideration and the price paid for a waiver of those claims by 
 the United States? 
 
 I should not feel justified in referring to the expressions used by Earl 
 Granville and other eminent members of the British ParlianuMit in their 
 legislative capacities, but for his own reference thereto, an<l for the 
 responsibility to which His Lordshi[> attempts to hold you for your pres- 
 ence at one of their sessions, and to which 1 shall again refer. 
 
 But the reference made by Earl Granville to the debate in the House 
 of Lords on the iL'th of June, and his own declaration on that occasion, 
 that "they (the indirect claims) entirely dinappear,'''' strengthens the 
 position of this Government that they had been juesented and were 
 reeogniy.ed as part of the claims of the United States. 
 
 A disapj)earance certainly imj)lies a i)revious appearan(!e. ' 
 
 Lord ("aims, long accustomed to close judicial investigation and the 
 critical examination of statutes and ot treaties, did iu)t agree to the 
 proposition that there had been a relimpiishment of the claims. He 
 declared that there could m)t be found "one single word • * 
 
 w hich would prevent such claims being put in and taking their chance 
 under the Tieaty."' 
 
 If. therefore, you were present througii the whole of the debate, yon 
 heard advanced in the House of Lords as well the opinion held by thi' 
 United States, as that now i)Ut forward in behalf of Clreat Britain. 
 
 It is true that I\Ir. A<lanis did not "define or formulate*' claims for 
 imtional losses. He did, however, "notify" them to Her JNIajesty's 
 Government. During the war these claims were continimlly arising and 
 increasing, and eoidd not then be "defined," and the time for " fbruiu 
 lating" them would not arise until a willingness to entei' upon their coii 
 sideration arose. 
 
 It is to be remembered that in the spring of 18G3 Her Majesty's Gov 
 
I 
 
 RATION. 
 
 nt put forward 
 !ct losses, with 
 jc'sty's Govern- 
 iiijurics as the 
 the part of the 
 
 even if it does 
 Dtilied " or pre- j 
 
 lli,!;h Coiimiis- ^ 
 uinishinent? 
 if they ha<l (as 
 'iiee exteiuliug 
 
 tlie possibility 
 and iKttitied to 
 iision from the 
 l)ortaiit class of 
 estimate of the 
 iai exelusiou ? 
 nit Britain have 
 ffer any consid- 
 
 ! same moment, 
 ireet or national 
 ; as a subject of 
 tain, and on the 
 ble settlement" 
 i»f certain rules, 
 those claims by 
 
 IS used by Earl 
 lament in their 
 to, and t(»r the | 
 u for your pres- 1 
 refer, 
 te in the House i 
 \ that occasion, 
 trenf^thens the 
 nted and were 
 
 ice. 
 
 igation and the I 
 
 t ai;;ree to the| 
 
 le claims. lie 
 
 # ♦! 
 
 ng their chancel 
 
 the debate, you| 
 lion held by tbf; 
 cat liritaiu. 
 ate" <'laims for| 
 II«'r JNIiijesty'sl 
 ally arising aud| 
 ime for " foruiu- 
 upon their cow- 
 
 Majesty's Gov- 1 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 53 
 
 oniiiieiit exhibited some iini)atience when Mr. Adams communicated 
 losses, and claims of indemniHcatioti therefor, and Lord Kussell, under 
 diitc of !Uh March of that year, wrote to Mr. Adams that " Her Majes- 
 ty's (Joveriiment entirely disclaim all responsibility for any acts of the 
 Alal)ania, and they hoped that they had already made this decision ou 
 their jKiit plain to the (lovernment of the United States." 
 
 In -July, 18(>.'J, Lord Kussell referred INIr. Adams to his note of 9th 
 ]\Iarch, and repeated the dis(!lainier of all liability; and on 14th Sep- 
 tember, in still more marked lansuajie, he expressed the hoi)e"that 
 iMr. Adams may not be instruct<'(l aj^ain to i)ut forward claims which 
 Her Majesty's (Jovernment cannot admit to be founded on any jirounds 
 of law <))• justice." Lord Itussell's replies to Mr. Adams altoi'd the 
 answer to ]>ord (Ji-anville's remark that "nocdaims (except direct claims) 
 were ever defined or formulated." 
 
 Ibit although the United States, under these circumstances, could not 
 consider that hour as the most favorable to a calm examination of the 
 facts or i)riiicii)les involved in cases like those in (juestion, and notwith- 
 standing these admonitions, it became imperative on Mr. Adams still to 
 present coi!iplaints. 
 
 On .'><lth December, 1802, he had complained of acts with the intent 
 to " pi'ocrastinate the war." 
 
 On Marcdi 14, IStiM, he wrote to Lord Russell that " the war had been 
 continued and sustained by the insurgents for many months past mainly 
 by the co-operation and assistance obtained from l»ritish snl)jects in 
 lier Majesty's kingdom and dependencies." He repeats a similar com- 
 plaint on L'Tth i^landi, and again on L'Stli April. <'oiipled with the sug- 
 gestion of the responsibility attending those who " furnish the means 
 of protracting the struggle." 
 
 At no tinu' during the occurrence of the events which gave rise to 
 the (litl'erences between the two (iovernments did the United States fail 
 to present amjde and fre<puMit notice of the nature of the indirect 
 injuries, or of tlieir inclusion in the accountability of (Jreat Britain. 
 
 Lord (Jranville admits that Mi-. .Fohnsoii ])roposed the national (daims 
 in Mar(di, l<S(i!». I mentioned them in my iustrnctiou to .>Ir. Motley, in 
 3Iay, lSt>!», ami again in that of Sei)teniber of that year. Although I 
 made no claim or <lemand for either direct or indiiect injuries, I did 
 present the nifit national injuries, so that Lord Ciarendoji, in his leply, 
 manifested no dilheulty in discerring that the United States did expect, 
 and would demand, the consideration of national, imlirect, or conse- 
 (pieiitial losses. 
 
 lean t'leridbre have no doubt whatever that the assertion in my in- 
 struction to you of L'Tth I'eltruary, <'onimented upon by Lord (iianville, 
 does "accurately represent the facts as they are shown in the corre- 
 spondence between the two (jovernnients." 
 
 Karl (Iranville endeavors to limit the nature and extent of the (diiims, 
 by an argument based upon the " expression " the " Alabama chiims," 
 Mhicdi (he says) (list occurs in a letter whi(di he designates. If may be 
 ■true that this *'ex|)ression "apjieared lor the Hrst time, in the ollicdal 
 correspondence, in the letter and at the date indicated ; but His Lord- 
 ship overlooks the fact that in this letter tiie language used is " llii'so- 
 icallcd Alabama cdaiins," showing evidently the adoption, lor coPiVen- 
 ienee, t)f a then familiar term in common use. designating by a short 
 generic name the whole <dass and variety of (daims, for the vaiious 
 injnries of which the United States had, at ditferent times, made eoin- 
 I plaint. 
 
 The (jiiestion, however, is not what was understood by the expres- 
 
54 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 COl 
 
 IS'- 
 
 It 
 
 sioii ''Aliibiuna claims,'' in 1S07, but wliat that same expression implied 
 in 1H71, when introdueed into the Treaty. It niij^ht not be diniculi 
 to show thiit the expression had in 18(57 aetpiired a definite sense 
 lav more eomprehensive tlian tliat to whieh Earl (Iranville desires 
 to restriet it. It is impossible to deny tlust in 1871 it wns as com})vt 
 hensive in sifiiiification as the United States claim it to Imve been. 
 
 The oiheiai eoirespoixlenee of this Government, which was publisliod, 
 and is within the knowled^n'e of Mer ]\Iiijesty's Government, inchuU'd 
 the indire<'t injuries under the expression '• the Alabama claims,-' Tliey 
 were prominently put forward iii the debates and the pul)lic <liscussi(»iis 
 on the rejection of the Johnson-Clarendon treaty. The American jucss 
 abounded in articles settin,ii' them forth as part of the "Alabama claims." 
 
 The President enumerated them in his annual message to Congress, 
 in December, 18(><). 
 
 The iiritish i»ress, in the summer of 1809, and subsequently, discussed 
 most earnestly the indirect losses under the title of "Alabama claims," -. 
 
 Continentiil jurists an<l publicists' di.scussed the national claims on 
 account of the jirolongation of the war under the head of "Iiccliuna 
 tions'' having " (pi'un rapi)ort indirect, ot nuUement un rappsnt dimi 
 avec les deiuedations reelU'inent (!ommises par les croiseur.s." 
 
 In tlu' year 1870 rrofe.s.soi' IMountague Bernard, subsequently one oi 
 the Commissioners on the ])art of Her Majesty, and whose name k 
 signed to the Treaty, ]>ublished a very able but intensely one sided 
 and i)iirtiid defense of the IJritish Government, under the title of ''A 
 Historical Account of the Neutridity of Great Britain during tlit- 
 American Civil War." TheXlVth clmpter of this work, as appciiis in 
 the table of contents, is entitled the"Alal)ama claims." I'mler tlii> 
 liead he i)re,sents the demand made by the United States for redre,s> 
 for"th(^ natioual as well as the i)rivate injuries." Professor Beriiiud 
 knew the extent of our comi»laints and of our denmnds. In tlii> 
 work he summarizes an instruction from this Department to tb 
 minister of this country in Great Britain as jiresenting "the (»]>inion<i: 
 this (lovernment" that the conduct of England "had been a vir^^uid aci 
 of war." He siiys, "The estimate which the American Governn^ it liii> 
 thought lit to adopt of its own claims * * * is not favor 
 able to a .settlement:" that iimong the renson-s for the rejection of tin 
 Convention of .liinuary 14, 1805), was the fact that it embriiccd ohIi/ th 
 claims of indivi(bials and had no reference to ihone of ihv tiro Hor- 
 crnmriitN on rock other. He sets lorth \hat the I'resident assigned, 
 among the reasons for his disapjuoval of that Ct>nvcntioM, that '• it^ 
 provisions were inadecpiate to provide reparation for the United Stale- 
 in the nninner and to the degree to which he considers the UnittV: 
 States entitled to redress," and that the Ticsident further declared tlia; 
 he was not tlien (180W) "prepared to speak of the reparation which lit 
 thinks «lue by the IJritish Government for the larf/er m-eount of the rn>.: 
 national injuries it has inflicted on the United States." And, furtliei, 
 that this Government Jield that "all these ar«^ subjects for liituie con 
 sideration, wiiich, n-hen the time for action nhidl come, the President wil 
 consider with sincere and eaincst desire that all <H()'erenee.s between tin 
 two nations may be adjusted amicably and compatibly with the homm 
 of each and to the ])romotion of future concovd between them." 
 
 \\"\\h this knowledge of the demand lor " ntdional" redress; that tlit 
 American opinion regaided the conduct of Great Britain as "a virtiia 
 act of war;" with the expressed opinion that the Anu'iican estimate n 
 its i'laims was extravagant; with the knowledge that a previous (Hi: 
 vention had recently been rejected, because, among' other icasons, "i: 
 
 lenibraced 
 )f the Gov 
 iiational in 
 ind that h 
 \f'or action 
 jcrnard, I 
 jonimissid 
 It would 
 guished sti 
 isii side of 
 Jess know! 
 1 hold tl 
 nissioners 
 luty conn 
 >t the claii 
 to liave set 
 I'^arl Gra 
 su.'U " the . 
 the Treat} 
 liVrl>itratioi 
 to give to t 
 nipose no 
 afO'^t't het\ 
 rmnent ol 
 !ouui;itted 
 enericalli/ 1 
 adJHNt all c( 
 )r()vide for 
 )y Her JMa. 
 5f// the said 
 Vessels, am 
 ^1// the cl 
 f ieferenc» 
 That whi 
 consc(iuent 
 whether tin 
 'Option be 
 pinion of 1 
 After the 
 ave been t 
 )i ((posit ion 
 t is appare 
 he Preside 
 ,'oui)h'd wit 
 Aonld bi- m 
 •ctween tin 
 .'liliunal. 
 t I as deep] 
 pi)>on what i 
 liliavc bei'U t 
 tvcry propo 
 
 rt (ireat Bi 
 Aiioth M' I 
 |by us, was n 
 •iput ol)iectio 
 tfis it was nm 
 
 
3ITRATI0N. 
 
 'Xl)ressi()n inipliod 
 it not bo (litlicult 
 
 SI definite st'iise 
 (iraiivilln drsiics 
 
 it wsis its coinint 
 to liave been, 
 ich was imblisliod, 
 erniiK'iit, incliuled 
 na claims." Tlicv 
 \)nl)li(! (liscussidiis 
 le Aniovicaii incss 
 'Alabama clairii.s." 
 isage to Congress, 
 
 quently, discjusscd 
 'Alabama claims," 
 latioiial claims on 
 load of '' licclama 
 nil rapport (Umi 
 iscnrs." 
 
 b.seipu'ntly one ol 
 
 ul whose name h 
 
 iitensely one sided 
 
 er tlie "title of ''A 
 
 iritain during tin- 
 
 ork, as apjx'ars in 
 
 linis." ruder tlli^ 
 
 States for redr('s> 
 
 Professor Jlernard 
 
 leiuaiuls. In tlii> 
 
 epartmeut to tlu 
 
 ig '• the (»i)iuion o; 
 
 been a vi>*^ual iici 
 
 n (lovernu; ;it li;i> 
 
 * is not favor 
 
 rejection of tin 
 
 euibraced onh/ tiit 
 
 ■e of ihe tiro dot 
 
 ■esident assigned, 
 
 ventiou, that 'Mb 
 
 the I'uitcd Sliitt'> 
 
 iders the riiitcii 
 
 lier declan'd tlial 
 
 )aratiou whicli lit 
 
 (vount of the ray 
 
 ' A\n[, furtlici, 
 
 ts for future con 
 
 le I'resiilcnt wil 
 
 •oiri's l)el\veen tilt 
 
 V with the hoiioii' 
 
 eii Iheiii." 
 
 re<lress; tluit tlii 
 
 taiu as "a virtiia 
 
 'ri<'au estiiuatc v: 
 
 t a previous Cui! 
 
 )ther reasons, "i; 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE EESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 55 
 
 jmbracod only the claims of individuals, and had no reference to tliose 
 )f the (lovernmeut; that the President exjtected reparation for the vast 
 \i(ttioit(il injuries''^ which Great Uritaiu had iullicted on the United iStaes, 
 iiid that he "held all these .subjects for future con.siderution when the time 
 
 \f(>r uvtion shall come;'''' when "the tiuie for action"' did come, Pri>fessor 
 Bernard, bringing this knowledge, api)eared as one of Jler Majesty's 
 Uoinmissioners to treat on these very subjects. 
 
 It would be doing great injustice to the other eminent and distin- 
 guished statesmen and diidouuitists, who were his associates on the Brit- 
 l^sii side ot the Commission, to entertain tlie belief that they brought 
 Jess knowledge on these points than was held by Professor Bernard. 
 
 1 hold that enough has been shown to establish that the Britisli Coni- 
 iiissioners who negotiated the Treaty did not enter upon the impe"tant 
 duty coiD'iiitted to them in ignorance of the nature or of the eXi'Mit 
 )t the claims which the American Government intended to present and 
 to have settled. 
 
 Karl Granville's elibrt to Iin)it and confine the meaning of the ex[)re.s- 
 sicn "the Alabama claims'' might induce one who had not the text of 
 the Treaty at hand to suppose that the reference to the Tribunal of 
 Arbitration was limited by the restricted meaning which he attempts 
 to give to the phrase " Alabanui claims." But the words of the Tnaty 
 Impose no such limitation; they are that, " Whereas differences hare 
 iirisih between the Government of the United States and tlie (iov- 
 ?iniiient of Her ]}ritaiinic ^Majesty, and si ill exist, (/roa-iny out (f ihe acts 
 2ouiii;itted by the several vessels, wlii<;a have given rise to the claims 
 'jenerieaUy known as the 'Alabama claims.' Now, in order to reinoce and 
 \£aljust alt complaints and elainis on the part of the United States, and to 
 provide for the sjieedy settlement of sui;h claims which are not admitted 
 \)\ Her Majesty's Government, the High Contracting Parties agiee that 
 »// the said claims ///'o/r/^// out (f the acts committed by the atoresaid 
 vessels, and geiieri.cally kiu)W ii as the 'Alabama claims,' be reli rr.d," »S:c. 
 All the claims ijroicing out of the acts committed, &e., are the subject 
 )f reference. 
 
 That which grows out of an act is not the act itself; it is something 
 consequent upon or incident to the act — the result of the ai;t ; and 
 l^vliether the claims to which ner .Majesty's Government now takes ex- 
 |ception be the results of the acts coniniitted by the vessels is, in the 
 )piiiion of this Governnient, for the decision of the Arbitrators. 
 
 Alter the positive d laration of Earl Granville that it "never could 
 lave been exiiected" that Her Majesty's Governnient would acce[»t the 
 knoiiositiou ot payment of a gross sum in satisfaction of all our claims. 
 It is apparent that an exposition, at this time, of the reasons which led 
 Hie President to hojie that the amicable settlement which he proposed, 
 (L'oiipled with the suggestion of large ])ecuniary concessions on our part 
 ^vould be made, will not tend to remove the dilfereiices now existing 
 
 ^letween the two Governments resi)ccting the jurisdiction of the Geneva 
 Triltunal. 
 
 I as deeply I'cgret that H( r ^Majesty's Governnient cannot understand 
 
 lijion what that hope was founded as 1 deplore what now appears to 
 
 ave been the i>redeterniiiiation of Her Majesty's Goverimieiit t(» KJeet 
 
 |Dvery proposal which involved an admission of any liability on tlu' part 
 
 ii)l Great Ibitain. 
 
 j^ .Viioth 'r proposal, ha\iiig no similitude to the i)revious one subniilteil 
 
 ifcy us, was made by Her Majesty' <Coniiiiissioiiers. They aceepteil. witli- 
 
 |t)ut oltjection, the Aiiieiieaii statement of the subjei't-matter in dispute. 
 is it was made, and they propo.sed, instead of the " amicable settleiueiit" 
 
 J '&"-' 
 'k 
 
 
- ! h1 
 
 56 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 1 
 .1 
 
 HJ: 
 
 
 offerod by tlu^ American Connnissionors, "a inodo of sottlonioiit" by arhi 
 tration, a liti{jntion,ala\vsnit in which Gnnit Britain sliouhl deny all lia 
 bility to the United States for all the in.jnrie.sconii)lained of. After sundn 
 niodilications, their projiosal was a('c<'i)ted by the United States, wlio 
 were thns compelled to brinj; before the Tribnnal the same present?neiit 
 of their losses which they had laid before Her Majesty's Uoinmissioii, 
 The siibject-matterof the snbmission nnule by the American "Case"to the 
 Geneva Tribunal differs in no i>articnlar from that which was aec<'pted as 
 the statement of the American claims, without objection on the part 
 of the ]»ritisli members of the Joint llif>h (commission. 
 
 The President is now, for the first time, authentically informed that 
 a waiver by this Government of the claims for indirect losses whidi 
 were formally i)resented was, in the oi)iiiion of Her Majesty's (iovern. 
 nient, also contained in this second ])roi)osal, was a nectessaiy condition 
 of the sn(!(;ess of the negotiation, and that " it was in the full belief 
 that this waiver liad been made that the British Government ratilied 
 the Treaty." Such a relin<|uishrnent of a i)art of the claims of tins 
 Government is now made by Earl Granville the ])ivot and real issiu' of 
 the negotiation. He ai)pears to imi)ly that thepri(^e paid by HerMajes 
 ty's (iovernment .o obtain that waivei' was the concession I'eferrecl to 
 in his liOrdship's note,and which, he says, would not have been ex])ecto(l 
 by this Government "if the United States were still to be at liberty tn 
 insist upon all the extreme demands which they ha<l at any time sag 
 gested or brought forward." 
 
 Here, j'.gain, is a clear intimation that Her Majesty's (lOvernment 
 were not in ignorance of the character <tf our demands, but that tlioy 
 were well "AHo/r«," and that tin; consideration to be ])aid for their 
 waiver (whether real or imaginary) had been deliberately determined. 
 
 Is it not surprising that such "extreme deiimnds" should be waived 
 on tin' one hand, and such "concessions" made on the other, without a 
 word of reference or suggestion that the one was conditioned on tlie 
 other ? 
 
 You can bear witness that at no time during the deliberations of tlic 
 Joint High ( -ommission was such an idea put forward by Her Majesty's 
 Commissioners. 
 
 The Protocols are utterly silent on the subject. 
 
 Tiiat no such reliiKpiisiiment was incorporated into the text of tlip 
 Treaty is cleai' enough. Wliy not, if thus deemed at the time, by Her 
 Majesty's (Jovernment, the hinge and essential part of the Treaty? 
 
 Wiiat are termed the "concessions" on the part of Great Britain np 
 pear in the Treaty, if tln^ relin(|uishinent by the Unit<Ml States of a 
 part of their claim was the (Miuixalcui therefor, why is not that set 
 foi'th ? Tliroughout the Treaty ar(> to b(> found recipi'ocal grants or 
 concessions, each accompanied by its reciprocal eiiuivaient. 
 
 How could it happen iliat so impoitant a feature of the negotiation 
 as this alleged waiver is now repi'csented to ho, was left to inference, 
 or to argument trom intentions never e\pr(>ssed to the Commission or 
 the Government of the United States until alter the Treaty was signed? 
 
 The amplitiule and tlie comprehensive force of the first arti(^le(or tlu' 
 granting clause) of the Treaty did iH»t escajte the <'ritic;il attention ot 
 ilei' Majesty's ('ommissioiu'rs ; l)ut w.is any effoit )na<le to limit m 
 reduce the scope of the submission or to ('xcliide the indirect claims! 
 
 You were infornu'il in my instruction of ^^'l>ruary -7 tiiat this Gov 
 erurui'iit does not consider the Treaty as of itself a settlement, but us 
 an agreeuieut as to the mode of reaching a settlement. To that opinion 
 the Pi'csideut adheres. He cannot aduiit that the treaty provision tor 
 
 |a settleiiij 
 jticttleineij 
 set forth 
 :'lear and! 
 Ioiig-staii(| 
 )f fneii(ll[ 
 pation wil 
 seat of till 
 than ail. il 
 pvceping ol 
 sacrifice nl 
 lin satisfiuj 
 The Um( 
 to transfe 
 hvithholdiil 
 Sected ]>r(| 
 ^'iVraniial 
 <' sub sileu 
 pllie otter ( 
 pired and 
 Fontaine*! 
 tion with t 
 In pen a gr( 
 jAvas repel h 
 liinpossible 
 |-when then 
 |a waiver a 
 To the SI 
 whether " 
 of the nati 
 teriiational 
 U'gument i 
 jneiit, Gre 
 jespectivel 
 Tlie firs 
 Ithat ''(ill 
 he a fores 
 ;lclainis,' sh; 
 ijidniits tha 
 lot' the refei 
 If the " 
 tclaims not 
 hhen such 
 In liK(> I 
 Jwere not. < 
 Unit I )in/NclJ 
 \]r,ut of flu 
 iTiibunal, } 
 % The Pre! 
 fpresented 
 3:" claim ;"' 1 
 lAlabama i 
 
 Siby the ve^ 
 Ikmr II. 
 I AVhich ( 
 lowers thes 
 
 'i 
 
BITRATION. 
 
 CORRKSPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 57 
 
 ^ttlonioiit"l)y arbi. 
 ilioiild deny nil lia 
 'dof. Aftei'sinidry 
 'iiited States, wli'n 
 same present m out 
 ^sty's C'oinirnssioii, 
 ri(!an"Case"t()tli(' 
 eh was aecepted as 
 'ction on tlie part 
 in. 
 
 dly informed tliat 
 ireet losses wliicli 
 Majesty's (Jovern. 
 e(!essary eonditioii 
 ( in tlie f'ldl beliot 
 Dvernment ratiliod 
 :lie claims of tins 
 t and real issne of 
 )aid hy Her INIaJcs 
 •ession referred to 
 lave been exi)eeto(i 
 to be at liberty td 
 I at any time sug 
 
 'Sty's (lovernment 
 ids, bnt tliat tlioy 
 
 be ])aid for tboii 
 itely determined. 
 
 slionld be waived 
 e other, witliont a 
 )nditioned on tlic 
 
 liberations of tlio 
 by Her Majesty's 
 
 o the text of tlio 
 he time, by Her 
 tlie Treaty? 
 
 rreat Britain ap 
 
 it(>d States of n 
 
 is not that set 
 
 irocal j^rants or 
 
 lent. 
 
 the ne<xotintioii 
 eft to infeiencc, 
 Commission or 
 'aty was siynedf 
 
 rst article ((»r the 
 
 tic:il attention of 
 lade to limit or 
 indirect claims! 
 that this (biv 
 ttlcmeiit, but us 
 To that opinion 
 ity provision for 
 
 settlement is in .substance or lejyal effect the .same as the "amicable 
 settlement"' sjioken of in the conierence hehl on the Sth of March, as is 
 set fortii in the Protocol. The ditterencu's between the two stand out 
 "Icar and broad. One woidd have clo.sed up, at once sind forever, the 
 foiiii'-stiiMdin^' coTitroversy ; the (ither makes necessary the interi)ositiou 
 )f friendly governments, a prolonj^ed, disagreeable, and expensive liti- 
 gation with a powerful nation, carried on at a great distance from the 
 sVat (»t' tills (roverninent, and iiiidcM' great disadvantages; and, more 
 than all, it compels the reappearance of events and of facts, for the 
 Keeping of which in lifeless obscurity tli(3 United States were willing to 
 sacritice much, as they indicated in their proffer to accept a gross sum 
 in satisfaction of all claims. 
 
 The United States (;uii assent to no line of argument which endeavor.s 
 to transfer the waiver of claims for indirect injuries (imjilied from their 
 jwithholding the estimate of tln^ amount of such claims) from the re- 
 (ccted ])ro])osal of the American ('ommissioneis for a settlement, 
 >' a'l'aiiiial)le,'' by the Joint High ( •oiiimissioii, and to incorporate it 
 <'siib sileiitio"' in the arbitration proposed by the JJritish Commissioners. 
 Pi'lie offer of this (lOvernment to withhold any i»art of its demand ex- 
 pired and ceased to exist when the acceptance of the proi>osal which 
 contained the otter was refused. It was never offered except in connec- 
 tion with the projio.sal that the Joint High Commission should agree 
 lupon a gross sum to bejiaid in satisfaction of all 'he claims, and then it 
 ras repelled. It a as never again suggested fr»'ni any (piarter. It is 
 jiiipctssible for Her Majesty's CJovernment to tix njion a moment of time 
 Avlieii there was an agreement of the contracting parties respe(;ting such 
 la waiver as that to which Earl Granville refers. 
 
 To the suggestion of doubt contained in the note of Lord (iranville, 
 ,vliether " it would be advantagecms to either country" to treat claims 
 )f the nature of those now under discussion "as ])roper subjects of in- 
 ternational arbitration," I can only re]»ly that, for all jiractical purposes, 
 arguiiient upon this (]uestion is suspemh'd, inasmuch as, in our Jiidg- 
 iiiciit, Creat Britain and the United States have bound themselves 
 respectively by the Treaty to mak(^ such submission. 
 
 The first article of that solemn instrument recites and decdares 
 that '■'(ill the said claims growing out of acts committed by 
 the aforesaid vessels, and geiierically known as the 'Alabama 
 claims,' .shall be referred to a Tribunal of Arbitration." Earl (Jranville 
 admits that the foiegoing are " the words in which the subject-matter 
 of the reference to arbitration agreed upon is defined." 
 
 If flic "Case" of the United States, as jiresented at Geneva, contain 
 claims not "growing out of acts conimitfed'' Ity the aforesaid vessels, 
 then such claims are not within the reference, and must be soa<lJu<lged. 
 
 Jn like manner, if any of the claims set foith in the American Case 
 
 ^were not. at the <\ate of the coDrsjxnulfucc hctiiren ISif Jjliranl Thornton 
 
 (Hid unisclf, (in .binuary and I'Vbrnary, 1S71,) "geiierically known" as 
 
 ])art <if the Alabama claims, they are not within the Jurisdiction of the 
 
 Tribunal, and must be so adjudged. 
 
 The ['resident admits, unreservedly, that every item of the demand 
 tpreseiited at Geneva must, within the meaning of the Treaty, be a 
 'f" claim :" that it must be one of the claims " geiierically known as the 
 Alabama claims," and that it must "grow out of " the acts committed 
 b\ the ves.sels which have given rise to the claims thus geiierically 
 
 lilKIWll. 
 
 ^^■llich of the claims presented by the United States at (ieneva au- 
 |swer.s these requirements, and is well founded according to the true iu- 
 
 
 i 
 
iH' 
 
 11. :i. .:•■■ 
 
 58 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 . ;;-■■■♦. 
 
 P2 
 
 ■' ' ' V" 
 
 m: 
 
 tent and meaning of the Treaty, is not to be deterniiuetl by either paitj 
 litigant, bnt is a question for the Tribunal to decide. 
 
 1 luive already referred to the eoinprt'hensiveness which the expression 
 " Alabama claims" had aciiuired when it was used in the correspondent, 
 and was incorporated in the Treaty in 1871. 
 
 Lord Ci ran ville says: "The word ryrHcr/w?/// naturally signifies that 
 all the claims intended were ejUHdem (jcnvrixr His argument would it 
 quire them to be ejuxdem upecivi. 
 
 The word was designedly used to embrace a " genus" — a ehiss oi 
 claims divided into several s|)ecies. " Genus est i(l, quod sui simile 
 communione (piadam, xitecie auteni diffcrentes, duas ant plures complec 
 titur parties." 
 
 The direct losses from destruction of property are of one species; thev 
 differ in dates, localities, and amounts ; they do not dilfer in charactii 
 or in " species." 
 
 Ifeferriug to my remark in the note to you of 27th February, that tlit 
 indirect injuries are covered by one of the alternatives of tlie Treaty 
 Earl tJranville does not perceive what " alternative" in the Tresit) 
 covers these claims. 
 
 This Government is of tlie oi)inion that they are covered by the alterna 
 tive power given to the Tribunal of Arbitration, of awarding a sum ii 
 gross, ill <;ase it linds that Great Britain has failed to fulfil any duty 
 or of remitting to a Board of Assessors the determination of the validit; 
 of claims presented to them, and the amounts to be paid. 
 
 By tiie Article VII, "in case the Trilmiial find that Great Britain lia> 
 failed to fulfil any duty or duties as aforesaid, it may, if it think projici 
 proceed to award a sum in gross to be paid by Great Britain to tin 
 Uniti'il States for all the claims refeired to it." 
 
 If Great Britain be found by the Tribunal to have failed of any of it' 
 duties, it is clearly within the power of the Tribunal, in its estimate o 
 the sum to be awarded, to consider all the claims referred to it, whetlu: 
 they l)e for direct or for indirect injiuies; there is no limitation to tlui: 
 discretion and no restriction to any class or description of claims. 
 
 The United States are "prei)ared to accept the award, whether favor 
 able or unfavorable to their views." They are conUdent "that it sluii 
 be Just." 
 
 Earl Granville refers to the allusion made in my instruction to yoi 
 of L'7th February, to the presentation by Iler Majesty's Agent to tlii 
 Claims Commission now sitting in this city of a claim for a part of tb 
 Contederate cotton loan, the exi)ress exclusion of which from the con 
 sideratioii of the Commission his Lordship admits had been mutnall; 
 agreed upon in the negotiations which preceded the appointment of tlii 
 Iligh Commissioners, and was provided for by the wording of tli 
 Treaty. 
 
 He thinks, however, that there is no analogy between the jtroceediii; 
 before the Washington Commission and those before the Geneva Ti 
 bunal; such, at least, ap[)ears to be the inference to which his arguiiui 
 is intended to lead. 
 
 He cites from Article XIV the ]»ower given to the Claims Comiiii- 
 sioners "to decide in each case whether any claim has or has not liii 
 duly made, preferred, and laid before them, either wholly or to any (s 
 tent, according to the true intent and meaning of the Treaty," and li 
 adds that "no similar words" are used as to the powers of the (ieiu'v 
 Tribunal. 
 
 It is true that "no similar words" are used, but His Lordship has ovti 
 looked the much broader and more comprehensive powers given to tli 
 
 CO 
 
 leneva i 
 Examine 
 iart of t 
 ^ajestv, 
 
 these . 
 latter r( 
 
 The siii 
 |1i(; chiiiii: 
 persons or 
 If theoth 
 
 Articles 
 ^er, the d 
 ]ed. 
 
 The woi 
 
 luce to til 
 
 tan be con 
 
 ect oi'ref<' 
 
 o the mat 
 
 |he Conini 
 
 I The siil.J 
 lliiiiiis gro 
 p^e to the 
 10 remove 
 tliiited St: 
 «|]aiins." 
 
 ri In conne 
 fie Tre; ty, 
 i|lld de ::i^ 
 §itlierGov( 
 " If Lord ( 
 'ashingto; 
 within iti 
 Piihunal to 
 if the Arti< 
 
 II The alius 
 ilotton loan 
 iiion His L( 
 <l^oiis whi(d 
 #ere also u 
 "fBent, (tor I 
 jBi the ]»ar 
 «nioiistrat( 
 liaiin, their 
 aruunieiit ; 
 ■fts Jiirisdici 
 ■Dijiilit have 
 ■■t The claiu 
 involving ii 
 & iMy aihisi 
 '|ioii. Earl 
 #e find that 
 
 tates reiiKi 
 'U)r to tin 
 m (who it 
 -fcearlyasti 
 't6 l>e excluc 
 
 
 
BITRATION. 
 
 CORRESPONDDNCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 59 
 
 led by either partj 
 
 liich the expression 
 lie corresitoiuleiiee, 
 
 irally signifies that 
 Lrguineiit would it 
 
 ^eims" — .1 elass oi 
 1, quod sui simile 
 Lilt pliires coiiiplec 
 
 )f one species; thev 
 dilVer in charactw 
 
 February, that tlit 
 ives of tiie Treaty, 
 ive" in the Tre.itv 
 
 eredby thealteriiii 
 
 awarding ii sniu ii 
 
 to fnllil any duty 
 
 ition of the validitv 
 
 l)aid. 
 
 t (Jieat Britain ha^ 
 y', if it think propw, 
 reat Britain to tin 
 
 failed of any of its 
 in its estimate o: 
 
 erred to it, whetlie; 
 
 » limitation to tluii 
 
 ion of claims. 
 
 aid, whether favor 
 
 lent " that it shal, 
 
 instruction to yoi 
 
 sty's Agent to tlu 
 I for a part of tlit 
 liich from the con 
 
 lad been mutuall; 
 
 iil)pointinent of tlii 
 wording of tlit 
 
 'en the itroceediiij; 
 •e the Geneva Ti; 
 V liich his arguiiuni 
 
 le Claims Comiui- 
 las or has not \w'. 
 
 holly or to any t'5 
 he Treaty,"' and li 
 
 ers of the (iemv 
 
 Lordship has ovi: 
 owers given to tli 
 
 icneva Arl»itrators by the words in Article II authorizing them "to 
 fcxainine and decide all questions that shall be laid before tiiem on the 
 Hart of the Governments of the United States and of Her liiitannic 
 la.jesty, resiiectively." 
 
 These grants of power are to he taken in connection with th". subject- 
 lattcr r(lcrr<'d. 
 
 Tlie sulijef't-matter of the reference to the Washington Commission is 
 |h(! claims for alleged wrongl'ul acts by either (U>veriiment upon the 
 kcrsonsor ))ro])erty of individuals or of corporations, citizens, or subjects 
 >f the other Government. 
 
 Articles XII and XIV i)rescribe certain requirements as to the man- 
 ner, the channel, and the time of inesentation of the claims to be exam- 
 K'd. 
 
 Tiie words "made, i)repared, and laid before" have no i)ossible refer- 
 Ince to the nature, tlie character, or the ground-work of the claim, and 
 |an be construed only as applying to each claim which is a i>roper sub- 
 Bct of reference, the test of the recpiirements of the Treaty, with resi»ect 
 
 the maniKM", the channel, and tlie time of its being brought bef(U'e 
 le Commission. 
 
 The subject-matter referred to the Arbitrators at Geneva is " all the 
 llaiins growing out of acts committed by the vessels whi(!h have given 
 Ise to tiie claims generically known as 'the Alabama claims,'" in order 
 
 remove and adjust all comi»iaints and claims on the part of the 
 Fiiited States, and to provide for the speedy settlement of such 
 Jainis." 
 
 In connection with such claims, and with the pui'iiose expressed in 
 lie Tie; tv, the Arbitrators ha''«' the broad grant of power to "examine 
 ind dc : K (dl qucstiom that sliall be laid befoi j them on the [lart of" 
 pther Government. 
 
 If Lord (Jranville can find in the words he has (juoted ]>ower in the 
 
 'ashingtou Commissiim to determine wiiether or not a claim presented 
 
 within its jurisdiction, it will he difllcult to deny the same power to a 
 fribunal to which the more comprehensive grant is made in the words 
 
 the Article IL 
 
 The allusion in my instruction of 27th February to the Confederate 
 )tton loan was to the fact that a claim, one of a class for whose exdu- 
 ion His J^ordshij) admits that exjiressions had been used in the negotia- 
 ions which preceded the api>ointment of the High Commission, and 
 rere alst> used in the treaty, was lueseuted by Her ^Majesty's (Jovern- 
 kent, (for by the Treaty a claim (!an only belaid before the commission 
 b the part of the Goveinment.) and that, when the United States 
 Muonstrated and recpiested the British Government to withdraw the 
 (aim, their remonstrance was unheeded, and the claim Avas inessed tc 
 rgument : that tlu^ United States demurred before the Comndssion to 
 ts jurisdietion, and the decision of the Conunissioii disposed of what 
 >iglit have been a question of embarrassment. 
 
 The claim was put forward as a test case, and wins one of a class 
 ivolving upwards of litty millions of dollars. 
 
 My allusion to it was not in the nature of a complaint of its presenta- 
 i§oii. Earl (Jranville has kindly furnished certain dates. I-'ioni his note 
 #e fhid that it was on the 21st Xovembcrt hat he learned that the United 
 Slates reiuonstiated againstthepresentationof this class of claims; that 
 ^'ior to the (Ith December lu^ had asci'itained from SirFdwar<l Thorn- 
 tdn (who it is known had lett ICngland on his return to the United States 
 •Bearly as the 2iSth day of November) that claims of til is class were intended 
 ^ be excluded, and that the treaty contained words inserted for that 
 
 >'L 
 
 .,il^ 
 
60 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 •'■I 
 
 .'■i-it"" 
 
 It •! >4h-jc, : .ri 
 
 
 object; that the remotistraiiro aiul request of tlie United States werf 
 not consitJeied by Her Jlajesty's (Joveinnient until the 11th of Deconi 
 ber; tliat a decision tliereon was not made until the 14th, (on whid, 
 day, I may add, the Aj^ent and Counsel of the J^ritish (iov«>rniii('iit 
 t)r()uylit the case to trial in Washiiiji'ton,) and that the announeemeiit c; 
 the decision of Her ^lajesty's (iovernnu'nt was not made -• you uiiti 
 the KJth December, two days after the case had been adjud;^ .1. 
 
 These dati's illustrate my allusion to this case. The IJ'-i.ed Stat(> 
 calndy submitted to the Commission the decision of its juriscction ovc 
 a claim involvinj; in its priuc'iple the (juestion of liability for many mil 
 lions of dollai's, which, it is }i<lmitted, had been expressly ajjieed toU 
 withheld I'rom the iHovince of tiie Commission, and thereby avoids 
 jeopardinjj the Tieaty, and the serious embarrassment which mi<iht liavt 
 resulted from their undertakinj;' to become the judges in their o\v[ 
 behalf. 
 
 I cannot pass over without notice the allusion made by Karl Gran 
 ville to your presence in the House of Lords on the occasion of th 
 debate of the lUth of June last, and the fact that you did not at ain 
 time challenge either of the cont'' ting interpretations of the Treat; 
 expressed on that occasion. I m. ,' a ' ' that similar retlections upor 
 the (,'onduct of this (lovernment in th: relation, uttered by ]»roi!iiin'ir 
 statesmen and news])apers in CJ eat IViitain, have been made pul)li( 
 and thus brought to my notice. 
 
 To all of these it is sufficient to say that the President does not lioW 
 it as any ]»art of his duty to intert .'c with the differences in the I'aiiia 
 ment, or the public pressof (J *at liiitain, resjjecting the trueconstnii 
 tiou of tlu? Treaty. The utt* lu'es in Parliament are privileged ; tlit 
 discussion in that high body is looked upon by us as a domesti(; one, i 
 which this Government lias no proper cognizance. If it is bouiul t' 
 take notice, it has the right to remonstrate. 
 
 To concede either to a foreign State, would be, on the part of a I'ni 
 liamentary Government, the abandonment of the independence wliid 
 is its foundation and its great security and pride. 
 
 Had you interfered, therefoie, either to remonstrate or to demaiii 
 explanation, ,N on would have expose<l yourself and your Government t 
 the very Just rebuke which the United States have had oci'asioji t 
 administer to dii)lomatic Agents of torcign Governments, who, in igiii 
 raiu'e or in disregard of the fundamental ]»riuciples of a Constitution;! 
 Government with an independent legislature, have asked ex])lanati(iii 
 from this (Government concerning the debates and proceedings of Con 
 gress, or of the communications i)y the President to that body. 
 
 You had a right to assume that if Her ]MaJesty's Government desiici 
 any ollicial information from you or your Government respecting tli 
 Treaty, or desired to convey any intoi'mation to you or to your (iovcii: 
 ment, they would signify as much in the usual ibrms of diplomatic ii 
 tercourse, as was done by Lord Granville in his note to you of Febniiu 
 3. Certain it is that it would have been in violation of recognize<l diiil 
 matic ])ro))rietics had you, on the occasion referred to, taken sides wit 
 either of the op[)osing views of the Treaty uttered on that occasion; 
 Parliament. 
 
 Further than this, it appears to me that the princii»les of Engli^ 
 and American la'v (and they are substantially the same) regarding l! 
 constiuction of statutes and of treaties and of written instruments yc 
 erally would ])recln(le the seeking of evideiu'e of intent outside tl 
 instrunu'ut itself. It mi:, lit be a painful trial on which to enter, i 
 seeking the opinions and recollections of parties, to bring into conllk 
 
 CO 
 
 le diU'cri 
 an inst 
 While 
 le emin 
 Ibstains 
 Ver\ III 
 lie memo 
 Ijipropria 
 Inch is 
 tii))lilicat 
 lets cssei 
 lat Trila 
 resell tati 
 '(jiiire a 
 xVs to w 
 listance 
 |el»ruary, 
 KMilpated 
 bmitted 
 laiiiis on 
 fere i)res( 
 ras made, 
 laiiied of. 
 lial settle 
 nibunal. 
 ptates, siir 
 ?signated 
 fAViiat t\\ 
 it ions, an 
 liability 
 ?terminat 
 . Should tl 
 idirect or 
 )ii of its 
 cceiit the 
 Should it 
 lis Gover 
 >ith in liri 
 Hth tlie.ju 
 vo I'ower 
 ||Dd claims 
 g^To tlieju 
 
 ?" 11, as tile 
 iiect the 
 ^ey entere 
 '; I am 
 
 
 
 iii General ] 
 
 ii 
 
 it'. 
 
 S 
 
tBITRATION. 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 61 
 
 [Tiiitod Statos worf 
 the 11 til of Doconi 
 ho 14th, (oil whicl 
 ti'itish (lovoniiiiciit 
 le iinnoniiciMiHMit oi 
 ; made -" you uiiti; 
 n adjud;, .1. 
 The IJ-i.ed Stnt(« 
 its Jniiscctioii ovoi 
 Dility for iiiany mil 
 )ro.ssly afi'vced to lit 
 id thereby avoidcc 
 t Avhieh iiiifilit hav( 
 idges in their ow[ 
 
 nade by Earl Gran 
 the occasion of tlit 
 you did not at ain 
 tions of the Treat; 
 iir retlections n\m. 
 tered by ]>roniin(Mi; 
 been made publit 
 
 sident does not holi! 
 •ences in tin' I'arlia 
 g the true constnii 
 are i)rivih>,ued ; tlif 
 s a doinesti(! one, o 
 '. If it is bound U 
 
 the part of a Par 
 ndependence whid 
 
 •ate or to demaiiii 
 our Governnient t( 
 e had occasion !■ 
 nents, wlio, in ij-iu' 
 >f a Constitution;! 
 iisked ex])lanati()i! 
 ■oceediiif's of Con 
 that body, 
 overnnient desiroi 
 lent resi)e<'ting t\\< 
 or to your (iovcii: 
 s of (iipl(»nniti(' ii 
 to you of Febniar 
 of rccoj;nized<lilil 
 (), tal<cn sides \vi; 
 on tliat occasion : 
 
 inciph'S of En,i;ii^ 
 anie) re}iaidin<; i! 
 n instruments p: 
 intent outsi(U' tl 
 which to enter, i 
 brins into coiiIIk 
 
 le diiVeriiiji' expectations of those who were enjfaged in the negotiation 
 nil instrument. 
 
 Wiiile the Cnited States liave nothing to fear from dei>artiiig from 
 K' eminently Just rule of law to which allusion has been made, it 
 Ibstains iioni such dejiarture. 
 
 Very much of the matter so elaborately and ingeniously {>resented in 
 
 lie memoianda attached to the note of Karl Granville could be (itlyand 
 
 ppiopriately addressed by the IJritish Government to the Tribunal 
 
 diicli is to i)ass upon the points presented therein. It would recpiire 
 
 Iii))liticalion, if not correction of statement, to make it jiresent all the 
 
 jicts essential to a correct judgment, and might re<piii'e a reply before 
 
 jat Tiibunal. It would certainly recpiire explanation as to many of its 
 
 reseiitatioiis, and its logic wouhl be denied ; but it does not seem to 
 
 bquiie a rei)Iy from me in the form of diplomatic corresjiondence. 
 
 As to what is contained in Tart III of that memorandum, 1 repeat in 
 
 distance what 1 mentioned in my note to you on this subject, of 27tli 
 
 |ebniary, that the indirect losses of this Government by reason of tlie 
 
 iculpau'd cruisers are set forth in the American "Case'' as they were 
 
 ibmitted to the Joint High Commission in the lirst discussion of the 
 
 laims on IMarcli 8, and stand in the Protocol approved May 4. They 
 
 fere presented at Geneva, not as claims for which a specitic demand 
 
 las made, but as losses and injuries consequent upon tlie acts coni- 
 
 faiiied of, and necessarily to be taken into equitable consideration in a 
 
 iial settlement and adjudication of all I'ne ditferences submitted to the 
 
 iriliunal. The decision of what is ecpiitable in the premises, the United 
 
 ftates, sincerely and without reservation, surrender to the arbitrament 
 
 ?signated by the Treaty. 
 
 AViiat the rights, duties, and tiiie interests of both the contending 
 
 itions, and of all nations, demand shall be the extent and the measure 
 
 liability and damages under the Treaty, is a matter for the supreme 
 
 ^termination of the Tribunal established thereby. 
 
 J (Should that august Tribunal decide that a State is not liable for the 
 
 [direct or consecpiential results of an ac<;idental or uninte .tional viola- 
 
 )n of its neutral obligations, the United States will unhesitatingly 
 
 ccept the decision. 
 
 Should it, on the other hand, decide that Great Britain is liable to 
 lis Government for such consequential results, they have tnat full 
 iitli in British observance of its engagements to expect a compliance 
 [ith the judgment of the Tribunal which a solemn Treaty between the 
 Ao I'owers has created in order to remove and adjust all complaints 
 id claims on the part of the United States. 
 
 To the judgment of the Tribunal when pronounced the United States 
 jlill, as they have pledged their faith, implicitly bow. They confidently 
 qiect the same submission on the part of the great Nation with which 
 ley entered into such solemn obligations. 
 I am, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 HAMILTON FISH. 
 Cieueral Kobert C. ScHi: tok, <£c., dec, ttc. 
 
 ^ 
 
 ■,liM 
 
62 
 
 CORUESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARUITRATION. 
 
 COl 
 
 I 
 
 tSl*s: 
 
 ,■1,1- > '. 
 
 I .1. -v. r '■*;.;. 
 
 No. 17. 
 
 General Sehenck to Mr. Fish. 
 [Extract.] 
 
 Xo. lOS.] Lkgatiox ov thk TTnitki) States, 
 
 London, April l.S, 187:,'. (HecoivtMl Apiil .'{(>.) 
 
 Sin: # # # # * 
 
 1 spent some tiino Avitli his liordsliip, «)ocni>yiiij,^ mysolf priii<*ii)nll.v in 
 the (iidciivor to iiiiike liiiii niKlcrstiMid liow littN^ i)i'op(n' coiiiprelM'iisio!! 
 tlicre is licrc of tlic stiite of pul>lic f('('iiiif»' iiiid opinion in the rnitcil 
 States. Tiiey believe, and the Government iias seemed to shai<' in tlu- 
 ini[)ression, that there is a very general desire .'imonji' our people, in 
 cludinn" the most of our pronunent men, that the elaims foi' indirect 
 damaiics shonhl be withdrawn, and the Arbitrators not asked to consider 
 or decide on them. 1 explained to Lord (Iranvilh^ tiiat nincli of tliis 
 ]nisapi)rchension comes fi'om the course of the Knulish ])ress, giviiij.- 
 prominence as it does to every article, letter, or i)nbli(;ati<in ol' any sort 
 comin<;' from America or purportinf>" to be written by an American tiik 
 iiijH the r.ritish view of the (piestion, an<l studiously excludin;^' all tliiit 
 would tend to ]»rove the almost entire unanimity of our ])ress and citi 
 z<'ns in support (»f the position taken by their (Jovernment. 1 wanici! 
 him ajjainst trustinji' to the corresi)omlence and writinj* of c(Mtain pci 
 soiis and journals that 1 natned, as atfordin,ii' any true exi)osition of tin 
 general sentiment in our country. And I represented to him that bdtli 
 thft (iovernnu'iit and citizens were much more {generally concerned to 
 liave all claims of every sort, whether rej>arded as substantial or shiid 
 owy, i;() to the Aibitrators to be decided upon, so that every existing' 
 com])laint and grievance might be blotted out und wiped away forever, 
 than they were troubled about eitlu-r the character or amount of tin 
 award to be rendered by the Tribunal. 
 
 What was most es[>e(!ially desired, 1 assured him, was that a decisioi 
 of the whole cpiestion and extent of the liability of a neutral should In 
 airive<l at, so that the ride and the law for all might be known in tin 
 future. 
 
 Indeed, aiiu)ng other things I told Tjord (Iranville fraidcly that T n 
 gietted to have to inform him there were not a few of our best ])e()iii' 
 who were growing so dissatisfied with the position which Iler MaJestV' 
 (Jovernment were now assuming, that they were beginning to say tlia^ 
 Great JJritain, they supposed, must be permitted to take h<>r course iiim 
 annul the Treaty, in which event the Tnited States could surmise siid 
 an uidiapi»y end to our labors and hopes as well as this Government, 
 
 All I said, an<l there was a great deal of it, was expressed and r^ 
 ceivcd in the most friendly manner, and helped to give us, I hope, 
 better mutual understanding, whetln-r it may have or not any otln: 
 <'ft('ct or residt. 
 
 His Ijordsliip. I am mon* than ever salislied, is sincerely and ]>aiuriill, 
 earnest in his desire to save the Treaty, and 1 havti no doubt that tlii- 
 is (Mpially triu' of other ministers. 
 
 f have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant. 
 
 lion. lI.\:\riLTON Fisii, 
 
 Secn'tKrij of UState, WuHhiufjton, I). C. 
 
 JfOJiT. C. SCIIENCK. 
 
 \o. 1S4.] 
 
 Sir : It i 
 iglit hav( 
 aims (|U( 
 lews with 
 liat aie n 
 ssion wh 
 lie and m 
 11 pose npi 
 [liicli migl 
 ilfeiciit c( 
 is (iovcr 
 le I'.iitish 
 iviiid that 
 >i'(it doiib 
 s occupic 
 liiiiiiiatcd I 
 iNcd to (pi 
 'i'liis (;o\( 
 irve the ex 
 ti< nal dii'l 
 IS'citlier tl 
 |d,i:e, any c 
 [clicd much 
 eJIpccted or ( 
 (jTlicy wci( 
 (^niseis' del 
 qpiiscd by th 
 aisdciatcd M 
 Jipliiison-Cla] 
 t|le Americai 
 ^niplaint, ai 
 ^gli Commi 
 fil'liat thev • 
 f«ilt of litis ( 
 ] icing left i 
 tH(n>l, (signed 
 tie Trcii'ty wi 
 gjiissed for si 
 ''' # 
 
 Mie riiited 
 u will not 
 respondcnce \ 
 mem which w 
 between th(> t 
 posed of, and 
 brought up at 
 the two (Jove 
 Tlie United 
 
 f ; ,■■ 
 
UTRATION. 
 
 CORRKSPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA AUIUTRATION. 
 
 Xo. IS. 
 Mr. Fish to General Schencli. 
 
 (J3 
 
 TED States, 
 oivtMl Apiil .'H).) 
 
 # 
 
 solf i>riii('ipnlly in 
 )(>!' comprcliciisioii 
 lion in tlio rnitod 
 led to sliiut' in tlio 
 )u<X our people, in 
 laiins lor indirect 
 tasiu'd to <'onsi(lcr 
 that iiiueh of tliis 
 ilisli pv(>ss, giving; 
 (tation ol' any sort 
 an American tiik- 
 exelndinji' all tliiit 
 t)ui' ])i'ess and citi 
 ■nment. 1 wanictl 
 in<* of certain iht 
 LI exjyosition ol' tiic 
 d to liini tliat both 
 •rally concerniMl tu 
 nltstantial or shad 
 Ihat every existing 
 il)ed away tbrevcr, 
 or anionnt of tlit 
 
 as that a decision 
 nentral shonld K 
 be known in tlit 
 
 frankly that I re 
 onr best ]n'o\)\( 
 ich Her Majesty'> 
 nninn- to say tliiii 
 vc her course am. 
 oid<l surmise siicl; 
 is (Joveinnient. 
 'xpressed and r< 
 <>ive us, 1 ho])!'. f 
 or not any otlii' 
 
 M'ely and i^ainl'al!, 
 no (loubt that tlii- 
 
 mt, 
 C. SCIIKNCK. 
 
 [Extract.] 
 
 Jo. 184.] l)i:i'Ain':Mi;NT of State, 
 
 Wunliiiuffon, April !*.'>, ISTL'. 
 
 Sil{ : It is unnecessary now to consider what action this (Jovernnu^nt 
 
 ii^ilit have taken with regard to the j)resent ithase of the Alaltama 
 
 llainis <|nestion had the Uritish (lovernment calndy presented their 
 
 lews with respect to their constrnction of the treaty in relation to 
 
 hat are now familiarly calle<l "•tin' indir<'ct claims.*' Tln^ j)nblic dis- 
 
 ission which they have thonyht i)roper to excite, and the discourteous 
 
 tnc and minatory intimations of sonwof the utteran(!es of the ministiy, 
 
 tilMtse ujion the Unitecl States a ditferent line of action from that 
 
 lliicli mifjlit have been adopted in rcsp(uise to a calm ]»resentation of a 
 
 jllcreiit <'onstrnction of the Ticaty from that which is entertained by 
 
 lis (iovernment, and of t'.e ai)prehensions whicli tiie imajuination of 
 
 le r.ritish public seem tc enteitain of the ])ossil>Ie maj-nitude of the 
 
 Isvard that may be made tor that class of the claims. 
 
 ^>'()t doubting the corr<*ctness of the jiosition uhich this (Jovei'innent 
 
 IS occnpied, and Inlly convinced that the " indirect claims" were not 
 
 |iniinatcd Irtmi the /.general c()mj)]aint of tlu United State. , 1 amiM)t dis- 
 
 )s((l lo (piesiion the sinct'iity of these who hold to the ojtjio.'-ite view. 
 
 jTiiis (lo\erument is ^('ry anxious to uiaintain the Treaty, and to i)re- 
 
 ^ive tlic example which it allouls of a peacelnl mode <»f settling inter- 
 
 iti( nal differences of the veiy f^ravest character. 
 
 j>icitlier the (loveiiiment of the United Stales, nor, so far as I can 
 jduc, any ciiusiderable number of the Ameiican ]ieo]»]e, have e\er at- 
 K'lu(l nuMtii iini»ortance to the so-called "• indirect claims,"' or have ever 
 |l)ectcd or desired any award of damajics on their account. 
 iTliey were advanced durinj^' the oc<-urrence of the events of the 
 luiscrs' de]iredati(Uis, and pcudi)i^' tiie excivenu-nt and the irritation 
 hiscd by the conduct of (ireat Jhitain. They becanu^ more inominently 
 psociated with the case dnrin,ii' tln^ discussions attendant upon the 
 ilinsonClarendon Tri'aty, and its icjecvion; and it was impossible for 
 le Anii'rican Commissioners not to lay tln'm as ynvt ol the Amerii an 
 Imphiint, and as formiiiji i)art of the American claims, before the .Joint 
 Jjiii Commission. 
 
 [Tiiat they were not excepted to by the IJritish Commissioners is no 
 lliU of this (lovernment. 
 
 I5('in,y lett in tin' <'ompliiint, and set forth, unchalleuincd, in the Uro- 
 
 [jol, (sij^iied only fonr <iays before the sij^iiinfi' of the Treaty, and when 
 
 Treaty was comi)let('(l in form and substance, and was beinji' ( ii- 
 
 >ssed Ibr signature.) tlu'y ( ould not be omitted Irom the '"Case." 
 
 *- ' # ' * * # -* 
 
 The United States now desire no iiecuniar.N awai'd on their account. 
 
 fu will not tail to have no: iced that throujih the whole of my cor-. 
 
 S]>on(l('nce we ask no dania.ues on their account, we only desire a Jud;^- 
 
 iul which will remox'c them lor all future time as a cause of ditference 
 
 twcen the two (loveruuH'nts. In o.sr opinion they have not been dis- 
 
 P!^i'(l of, and unless disposed of, iu some way, they will renniiu to be 
 
 lM|)uj;lit up at some future time to the disturbance of the harmony of 
 
 tM two (lovernments. 
 
 The United States are sincere in desiring a "tabula rasa'' on this 
 
 
 
 i 
 
i! • 5 
 
 
 f. '^ 
 
 ..!^v- >■■ 
 
 64 
 
 correspondp:nce respecting geneva arbitration. 
 
 Alabiuna qiu'stioti, and tlK'n'tbre tlioy (h\sin; ajiuljjmeiit upon tlii'iu by 
 
 the (Iciieva Tiibiiiial. 
 
 ******* 
 
 In the corrt'spondonco, 1 Iiavo jjoi'C ''i** bir as pnuk'ncc would allow in 
 intimating' that we ni-itlicr dcsiiod or cxpcctcil any iiccuniavy award, 
 and tliat we islionld be content with an award that a Stale is not liable 
 in peeuniary daniaj^es tor the indirect results of a failure to observe its 
 neutral obligations. 
 
 It i.s not tiie interest of a country situate as are the United States, 
 with their larye extent of seaeoast, a small Navy, an«l smaller internal 
 police, to have it established that a nation is liable in (bimap's for tlu; 
 indirect, lemote, or conse(jnential results of a failure to observe its 
 neutral duties. This Government expects to be in the future, as it has j 
 been in the past, a n«'utral much nu)re of the tin»e than a bellijucrent. 
 
 It is stran^ic tliat the Ilritish (iovernment does not see that the inter- 
 ests of this (Iovernment do not lead them to expect or to <lesire a judjf- 
 ment on the "indirect claims;'' and that they tail to do Justice to the 
 sincerity of purpose, in the interests of the future harmony of tlu^ twoi 
 nations, which has led the United States to lay those claims before the 
 
 Tribunal at Geneva. 
 
 * * * * * * • 
 
 I need not repeat to you the earnestness of the President's desire t(i 
 prevent a failure of the Arbitration, or any rei)udiation of a Treaty whicli 
 is so hopeful of bc^neticent results, nor nee(l 1 urj;e you to continued 
 elt'orts, by all that is in your i)ower, consistently with the honor ami 
 dignity of this nation, to briny about an honorable nnderstandinj>' bi- 
 tween the two Governments on this <pu'stion, which has been, as it ap- 
 pears to us, so unnecessarily and unwisely raised, to the imminent peril 
 of an imi»ortant Treaty. 
 
 I am, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 ha:miltox fish. 
 
 General Hobert C. Sciienck, tCc, etc., tkc. 
 
 .■•«''S «,;■.■•■' 
 
 No. 19. 
 
 General ScUenck to Mr. Fish. 
 
 
 ■■■; V.*"" 
 ■'■<' ■'.. ■''■' 
 
 ■3. 1." 
 '■ , r 
 
 in A 
 
 [Extniet.J 
 
 Kg. 210.] Legation of tue United States, 
 
 Londun, April 25, 1872. 
 
 Sir: At this moment it appears too probable that the Governmeui 
 here will * * * * * # • 
 
 take such a course as will put au end to the Arbitration at Geneva aud 
 to the Treaty. 
 
 I will not now attempt to explain or comment on the situation. Tin 
 •development and the events of the last lew days ycu will have gatli 
 ered from my telegraphic communications, and from the reports of pro 
 ceedings in Parliament, and articles from the London journals, which 1 
 continue to send you. 
 
 If there is to be a disastrous termination of all our v k, from whifli 
 we had hoped so much of good for the two countries a '. 'or the world. 
 the obstinate refusal of the British Government and people to go on 
 Avith a solemn aud high eugagemeut that, without any sacrifice of tbtii 
 
COKltKSPONDKNOK RKSl'KCTING GEXKVA AKIUTKATION. 
 
 Gf. 
 
 dignity iiml iiitci'csts. iiii^lit liiivc liccii ('oiidiicti'd to m ('oiicliisioii wliicli 
 wiiiilil liiivr blnttcil iiwn.v nil sciiitiis ciinscs of (lisii^rccmciit Ix'twccii 
 llit'iii iiiitl us, will !)(! not a little o\\ iii,^' to the course of some of our o\\ n 
 I'iti/eiis. 
 
 'i'lie (lililiciiltii's liiive l)eeii woiiderfully increased of late, anTi (Ireat 
 I'.iiliiiii eiicourau'cd in lier i»ositioii by tlie tone of some of the Ameri- 
 iiaii joarnals, l»y iuconsiilerate declarations of some public men, and i>y 
 liiiiu'li wiitinji', tele;^i'a|>liinj4', aud conversation, not vise and thou;;litluI, 
 iIkiii^Ii .generally, perliaps, not miscliievously intended, Tiiis lias led 
 lilt last to a common cou\iction here that tiu> best and most inlluential 
 liiicii of the United ^States desire to liaNc oui' (lovernment recede I'ront 
 jits position. 
 
 I await still your communication in rcjily to liord (iranville's note of 
 Itlif :.'<'th ultimo. I hope, also, with that, or sooner by telejiiapli, to re- 
 Iccive instructions fi'om you, which may direct and help nu' in any con- 
 It inncncy likely to occur. I shall doubtless hav(^ much to rcjKtrt and 
 |brin.!.r to your consideration now vei-y soon. In the mean time, 1 will not 
 till to keep my mind anxiously directed to any and every expedient by 
 |wliicli tli(^ Treaty may i)ossil)ly be preserved, alt houj;h our interest in 
 jiiiiiiitaiiiinji' and cxecutiuu' its i)rovisions is (;ertaiidy not .urcatcr than 
 111! need of this nation, which does not seem to nu; to fully wei^^h aud 
 liipl»reciate the unhappy consecpu'uces to How from its repudiation. 
 1 have the honor to be, veiv respetitfidlv, vour obedient servant, 
 
 ' JiOJJT. C. .SCIULNCK. 
 Hon. IlAMII.TON FlSII, 
 
 Si'nrfari/ of State, WaNliiii!;ton. 
 
 4»!;i 
 
 t 
 
 LTOX FISH. 
 
 situation. Tin 
 
 No. LM». 
 
 ?Ir. Fish to (loKKil Schciirl'. 
 [TclcMiiiin.] 
 
 WASlllN(iT()\, April L'7, 1872. 
 
 You an> aware that neither in tlic Case ])resented in behalf of this 
 
 t'lovernnu'ut at (icneva nor in the instructions to you have the 
 
 'nite<l States asked for ])e(;uuiary (lama,!4'es on ac(;onnt of tint part of 
 
 jlie Alabama claims <'alled the indirect losses, which the I'ritish (Jov- 
 
 irmiient think are not within the i)roviiu'e of the Tribunal We think 
 
 It essential, however, that the (piestion be decided whether claims of 
 
 lliat nature can in the future \w advanced a|i>'aiust the Tnited States 
 
 Is a neutral by (heat Britain when the latter is a belli;;erent ; for if 
 
 ■iroat Britain is to be at liberty when a belligerent to advanc-e claims 
 
 • indirect losses or injuries a<;aiust this country, then our claims must 
 
 De maintained aud we must ])iess for comi)ensatiou. 
 
 A conversation with Sir Edward Thornton induces the belief that the 
 British (Jovernment may make a jtroposal to .\ 'u to the effect that Her 
 lajesty's (lovernment enga,ues and stipulates thai.bi the future, shouhl 
 ^reat Ihitaiu be a belli;4'erent ami this country n<.''tral, and should 
 there be any failure on the i)ai't of the United States u observe their 
 Iciitral oblij>'ations, (Ireat Uritain will make or advance Vn com])laints 
 [v claims against the ITnited States by icasou or on account i.^' any in- 
 lii'cct, renujte, or consequential results of such failure; aud .^at, in 
 loiisidcration of such stipulation, the United States shall not pros.- for 
 o G A 
 
 m.W- 
 
 
 ■■■•^11 
 
 
 
 rvVJ 
 
 
m . 
 
 >;:t^! 
 
 .J::>! 
 
 fin 
 
 correspondencb: res[m:cting geneva ariutratiox. 
 
 .1 pocniiiary awiird of dainajic's luifoic tlio (Iciieva Tril)iiiial on account 
 oi tlic claims rcspcctiii,;;' wliicli (licat IJritaiii lias expressed the opiiiioi! 
 that they are not inclnded In the sul»iiMssioii, namely, the tiaiist'ei' oi 
 the Americ-aii ship[)inii', increased insurance, and the i>rolon;;;ation of 
 the war. 
 
 Should a pro]»osal to this elTeet be made by the liritisli (TOveiMnneut. 
 the President will assent to it, it bein.u' understood that there is iin 
 withdrawal of any part of tlie American (!ase, but an aji'reement not tni 
 deniund damaj^es on account of the i-laims refei'red to, leaviu};- tliel 
 Tribunal to nnd;e sueli expression of oi)inion as it may think i)roper nii 
 that (piestion. 
 
 It is presumed that sucli an a.ureemeut may l)i' carried iuto elfcet livl 
 au exchan;>e of notes. 
 
 Xo. 21. 
 (ieneral ISclienrl- to Mr. Fii^li. 
 
 ['rclcorjim.] 
 
 LoNJ)ON, April ;](», 1871*. 
 
 Your ISl, received last ni;;ht, has been by some accident Avet anii| 
 blurred, but I hope to make it all out to-<lay. .A[eantime your teleyraiiiU 
 ■whicli came Sunday nijilit, was the oe(!asion of a strictly conlJdenti;i:l 
 interview with (Iranville yestenhiy. J le objected to this (ioverniiiciri 
 makiufi' lirst nujvement, but that i)oint is now conceded. They objd:;! 
 to having Arbitrator.s exi)ress ()i)inion on indirect claims, when the twil 
 (jrovernments ajL;ree that they are not to be the subjectof award. 1| 
 
 After consideration by Cabinet the followinj^' ])ai)er was f«iven me Iii>;^ 
 night conhdentially as the draught of a possible communication to Um 
 made to me, if the United States have promised to assent to it and \vi[| 
 previously jtut Her ^lajesty's Governnuuit in possession of the terni-i 
 of the assent : 
 
 "Her Majesty's Government adhere to their view that it is ii(i:i 
 within the ])rovince of the Arbitrators to consitU'r or to decidi 
 upon the claims lor indirect losses, vi/, the transfer of the Americii;? 
 shipping, the increased prendnms of insurain-e, and the prohuigatid ., 
 of the war, aiul that consi-quently the <!overiiment of the Ignited Stati-J 
 ought not to i)rcss for a consideration of such claims. They aie, liowp 
 ever, ready to state that, in the event of the (lovernnu'ut of the I'liiL 
 ted States agreeing that the Arbitrators are not to have regard, iilj 
 any award that they may make, to the above-mentioned claims, Ih. 
 Majesty's (loxcrnnu'nt will, on their ]»art, agree that the view wlii.. 
 they have her»'tofore presented of the inadmissibility of such claiiii 
 shall still coutinue to l)e their ])rinciph» of action and conduct in ;i , 
 like cases and in similar circumstan(;es ; and that they are ready, ii J 
 ]>ursu;;nce of the recognition of such priucii)le, to give assurance t --^ 
 the United States that, if (5reat Uritain should, at anytime hereallti | 
 Ilea belligerent, while tht> Uiuted States is a neutral, claims of tli;i 
 nature, iu similar eases ami sindlar circumstances, will never be ini 
 vancetl against the United States, su(d» an assurance for the futtui 
 being recii)rocally given by both parties. An airaugement smi 
 as is h?re skelched unl might be carried into effect by an «'xchangt'i | 
 notes, which shall beeommuidcated to and recorded by the Arbitrators, 
 
 III submitting this draught of their proposal, I slnudd iidorm you tli;i' 
 
 COK 
 
 have iiisis 
 
 iroMi jtressi 
 
 hove Mieiit 
 
 Fii»rd (rrai 
 lute subiniti 
 
 '• 1 have 
 
 J)y.Mr. Fish 
 
 )ii the 1st in 
 
 that Her M: 
 
 )ii which tin 
 
 Mie s('o])e am 
 
 pciiexa. did 
 
 fi) coiuply wi 
 
 )f the Unite 
 
 [lie declarati 
 
 [lie Md of l'\. 
 
 Iiiiiid ; and a 
 
 Icr which Mi 
 
 ;ree with .^ 
 
 ngiiiiientativ 
 
 ^tood that, if 
 
 irom an asse 
 
 leniid, withoi 
 
 Majesty's (Jo^ 
 
 [ion, therelbr 
 
 pc accepted 
 
 Itate the viev 
 
 Tlie I'lvsid 
 
 lleilglit prop! 
 
 |f-7tli Aiu'il, 
 sdliilion of 
 
 <• the arbitra 
 iilmc ami tei 
 
 ^piil are siicl 
 ilt^ cjinnot i 
 ithdriiws an; 
 
 '■'•III (he cons' 
 
ITRATION. 
 
 COKRESPONUENCK RESPKCTING GENEVA ARIUTKATIOX. 
 
 67 
 
 biiiial on :iC('()Uiit.| 
 'sscd the ()i>ini(jii| 
 y, the ti'iiiist'enJ 
 ■ ])i()h»iij^at u»u oil 
 
 tisli (loxcnmifut.j 
 that there is iiJ 
 a,iireenieiit not tJ 
 I to, h'avni,i;' tliJ 
 V think inopiT niJ 
 
 it'll into el'i'cct liyi 
 
 , Ai>rH ;;0, 1872. 
 aeeident Avet aiuij 
 lie your teleyraiiij 
 rietly conli(lenti;i| 
 i this (ioveinnicii 
 lied. Tliey ohJ('i| 
 inis, when the twul 
 tof award, 
 was <>iven me lusij 
 iininnieatiou to hi 
 sent to it and \vil| 
 sion of the teiiiii 
 
 \v that it IS ii(i!yH)( 
 
 liave insisted on this lanrfna<;'e, " the United States aj^'recinj^' to retrain 
 I'roin i»ressin,<i" for ('oinpensation or for an,\ pt'cnniary award for the 
 ihovf mentioned claims." 
 
 ^To. 22. 
 
 (rencral iSclienvl- to }fr. Fish. 
 [Tclcuriiiii.] 
 
 London, ,1^/// 1', ],S72. 
 
 Liird (rranviih' proposes the foHowinj;' as the introductory part of the 
 lolf submitted to you by my telej>ram of the .'JOtli ultimo: 
 
 '• I liave hiid befort^ my eolleaj^ues the disjtatch addressed to you 
 n Mr. Fish on tlie Kith ultimo, of which you furnished me with a copy 
 III the 1st instant. I infornu'd you, in my letter of the 20th of ]\rarch, 
 hat Her 3IaJesty's Government, in communicating to you the grounds 
 lU which they hold that the claims for indirect losses are excluded from 
 lie scope and intention of the reference to the Tribunal of Arbitration at 
 ieiu'va. did not wish to commence a dii>lomatie controversy, but merely 
 I) ((iiniily with the desire substantially expressed by the (Jovernment 
 ,f the United States to be advised of the r<'asons which had prompted 
 ;lit' (leclarati(.n made by me on behalf of Jler .Majesty's Government on 
 lie .'id of February. Her ^Majesty's Government are still of the same 
 liiiiid: and although they cannot admit the force of the jiartial rej'oin- 
 x'V which Ml'. Fisli has made to that statement of their •easons, they 
 gree with .Mr. Fish in seeing no advantage in the eontinu.tuce of an 
 rgimientative discussion on the subject. It will, however, be uiuler- 
 itood that, if I do not review the matter of !Mr. F'ish's disi»atch, it is not 
 from an assent to his ]>ositions, but from the hope that a way nuiy be 
 fomid, without prejudice to the arguments heretofore advanced by Jler 
 ^liijcsty's (iovernment, to avoid further controversy, fn the full expecta- 
 ioii, thereh)re, that an arrangement satisfactory to both countries will 
 
 accc 
 
 l)ted by the (rovernnuMit of the United States, f proceed to 
 
 tier or to det'i(l«tati' the views of JLer .ALaJesty's Government 
 
 of the Amerii'iit^ 
 
 the prt»longatioi| 
 the United StatH 
 
 They are, h 
 
 ((V 
 
 |iment of the I'li 
 It) have regaid. i 
 litiiit'tl claims, lli 
 lit the view wlii,. 
 ,y of such claiiii' 
 
 id ctMidiiet ill II 
 licy are reatly, i 
 live assurance i 
 jiy time hereallci 
 111, claims tif tier 
 Ivill never be in: 
 ]ce for the fnlui 
 Irrangement siiii 
 ]»y an exchange i 
 the xVrbitrattiis. 
 
 d inform you tliii: 
 
 No. 2; 
 
 Mr, Fish lu (nncral StlttKck, 
 
 '['I'llUlMIM.] 
 
 WAsitiN(iToN'. Mai/ {, 1S72. 
 
 Tlic I'residciit regrets tliat Her .Majesty's (it)vermnent have not 
 
 iniight ]>ropcr tt) makt^ the iMt)posal mentioned in my t<'legram to ytui 
 |l'-7lli April, wliich this GtiM-rnment hail Iteeii leil tttlittpe might allbrtl 
 
 sdhuion of the tlilferiMices between the twt» Governments witli i,^ .itl 
 • tilt' arbitration now pending under thi^ Treaty of Washington. 'Ihe 
 iiliiit' ami terms oi'tlii^ proptisititm ct)ntained in ytnir telegram of .'iOth 
 ipiil are such that it cannot justify his assent. 
 
 lie cannot asseutto any proposition which by implication or inference 
 ritlidraws any ])art of the (ilaims, or of tlie('aseof this Government, 
 I'oiii the consideriition of the Tribunal. The JJritish Gov<Mnment prt>. 
 
 *• fi 
 
 M 
 
 "I f 
 

 G8 
 
 C(>UKi;SPONl)EXCE RKSl'ECTINU GENEVA AKIHTRATION. 
 
 l)OS('s lliiit the views licictoloie incsciitcd by thciii, that ccitaiu of the 
 eliiiiiis ]»nt f'oi'tli by tlie riiitcfl States are not within tiie proviinre ot'tlicl 
 Ti'ibmial, be contiimed as their priiujiph' of a(!tii)ii and coiidiict, aiidtliat| 
 ill recoj^iiition of siieh jiriuciple an asstifanee be reciprocally /^iviMi hy 
 both jiarties. 
 
 Tiie United States (h) not entertain tlie views tlnis presented by ]Icr 
 ^Majesty's (lONeriiinent and eaiinot enter into an assiiranee on the b,isis| 
 of sneh prineii>le. Tiie proi)osal limits the a,!;reenient of tiie iJritisli 
 Cioveriinient to a stipulation not to advance elaiiiis of that iiatur(Mii 
 similar eases and similar eireumstanees. No two eases are similar, ami 
 eireiimslanees similar to those arisin;n- diiriiin' the reltellion cannot occiu 
 to (Ireat JJritain ; conseqneiitly the terms of the proi)osed ai;reem('iit! 
 ynaraiitee iiothin,ii,' to this (ioveinment. 
 
 The ]»roposa! pre\'ents any expression of opinion or ol' judj;iiient hy) 
 the Tribunal on the class of claims referred to, and thus virtually 
 denies what this (loveriimeiit believes — that the Tribunal has Jurisdic.j 
 tion over all the claims which have been put forth. I'lidcr these cir- 
 ciimstances the Presi(U'itt is compelled to adhere to the opinion that irl 
 is within the -province of the Arbitrators at (leiieva to (;ousi(h'r all the 
 claims and to determine the liability of (l''eat Di'itain for all the claiiii.<| 
 which have been jtiit forward by the United States. 
 
 No. I'L 
 
 Gfurral ^<(^hcll<■L^ to Mr. Fish, 
 
 [Tcll'J41'Mlll.] 
 
 LoNDox, Mitji Ttj 1S71.', 
 
 Your tele<;'rani of yesterday received to-day. 
 
 Will endeavor to see (Jranville tonijiht or early to-morrow. Willj 
 ui';;e him to modify his proposal in accordaiu^e with your views. Wi 
 you examine it, includiiin' introductory paragraphs as _i;iveu in my tel 
 "grains of April .'SO and .May .'5, and, takinj;- it tor a basis, suj^'^i'est exactly] 
 what modifications would make it ]»ossibh' for the President to assent 
 to it ' Also j^ive me drauiiht of such reply as you would be willinj;to inakc, 
 1 am conlideiit this (loveriiment will not aj;ree to the last para,;;rapli otj 
 your telej^ram of A[)ril L'T. They may a<;ree that if the United Statis 
 will enj;aj;'e not to press for awanl lor indirect daina,!;('s, iiotliinj;' iiecil 
 be said about any modilication of the ori,Liiiial Case, nor whether siicli 
 a,i;reement is a withdrawal or not a withdrawal of any part of tliiitj 
 ( )ase. Kather than a,nree t(» submit tin; indirect claims to tlie Jud,i>ineiitj 
 of the Tribunal, 1 appreliend this (iovernment, liacked by I'arliameiit] 
 would cease uejiotiatitiii and make an absolute declaration a,u'ainst pro 
 ct'cdiiin' with the arbitration. Could the President assent to their olVcij 
 if I can <i'et the followhij^' substiliitt^ for what 1 tele;^ra[)hed April .'!(>' 
 
 " Her Majesty's Goveniuieiit are now ready to state that if the Unitcil 
 States will and do aj^ree not to press tor a pecuniary awai'd before tin' 
 'i'ribunal of Vrbitration at (iciieva,on account of claims for iiidiicd 
 losses or da aji'es, namely, the increased premiums of insurance, tlaj 
 transfer of Aiiierican shippin.L;', ami the iM'olon;;atioii of Ihe war. Ill 
 Her Majesty's (iovernment will and do, ou their part, en;;;!,:^!' and sti| 
 late that, should (Ireat P.rilain at any lime in the luture be a iiellif^erciilj 
 
 while the United Stalt 
 
 a neutral : and should there be aii\ failure o!i 
 
TRATION. 
 
 ■it ccrtaiu of the 
 ', province of tin.' 
 )ii(luct, iiiid tluit I 
 ■ocally ;j;iveii bvi 
 
 resented l»,v Ht'v 
 nee on tlie li.isjs| 
 t of the JJritisli 
 f that ii:jtnr(^ in 
 are similar, and 
 ion cannot oecuv 
 k)S(mI a.n'reenu'iitl 
 
 of jn(l.;;'iiient l>y 
 I tlins virtnallv! 
 nal has Jurisdic- 
 I'nder these cir- 
 >, opiniou that it] 
 (consider all tlii' 
 'or all the elaiiiisl 
 
 CORKESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 (59 
 
 t, 
 
 Mint o, 1872. 
 
 )-)norro\v. Will 
 iir views. Will 
 iven in my tele- 
 siin'^i'est exactly! 
 si(h'nt to assent 
 wiilinjitomala', 
 ist i)ara,i;rai)h (ill 
 e I'nited Statis| 
 s, nothin;;' iietMl 
 or wiu'ther snclij 
 ny part of tliiitl 
 to the jnd.n'nuMitl 
 hy Parliament,! 
 ion a.uainst pni| 
 nt t(» tluMr oll'i'ij 
 ed April .".(t .' 
 It if the IJnitcilj 
 ward be lore tlif 
 IS for indiriTtj 
 I' insurance, tlii'j 
 f Ihe war, tlici 
 ,H-a,i;c and slipiil 
 be a belli,:;'erciii 
 e anv lailiire o:i 
 
 [tlic i)art of the United States to observe tlieir nentral ol)li,u'ations, (Ireat 
 
 rjhitain will make or advance no (complaints or claims a,niUMst tlu^ LTnited 
 
 States by reason or on account of any indirect, remote, or conse(|uen- 
 
 Itial results of such failure. This rule, or principle, not to advance or 
 
 {i)ress complaints or (daims for indii'cct, remote, or conscfpUMitial daiu- 
 
 iiiics, to l>e mutually ai"d reciprocally observed by both i)arties in the 
 
 future. The notes whieh aic e.\c,han,iied on this sid)ject to be presented 
 
 to the Tribunal of Ai'bitial ion ami entered on its record." 
 
 Xo. 
 
 (ic)tcral fSchciick to Mr. Fi.sli. 
 
 [Ti-lciiriiiii.] 
 
 London, Mat/ 0, 187l*. 
 
 Had two hours'' discussion with (Iranville last nif;ht. To-day he 
 hiands lue, as the result of conference with his colleaj;ues, the I'oUow- 
 inji aniended ]tro])osal. Compare it with their former offer and infoi'ii 
 
 in 
 hno( 
 
 e how far you can assent or must object. I told him 1 thou;nht it not 
 litied so as to be vet satisfa(;torv, but aji'reed to submit it to vou. 
 
 '• ller .Majesty's (Jo\ernment areieady to eiij-a.i'e that, in the event of 
 the (iovernment of the United States a;4reeinj;' that the Arbit' (ors nvv 
 
 hint to have regard, in any award that they nmy nndce, to the claims for 
 indirect losses, namely, tlie transfer of the American shipping', the in- 
 (■reased premiums of insurance, and the ])rolongati(»n of the war. Her 
 
 piajesty's Government will, on tiieir part, ajuree that the view which 
 they have hei'ctofore presented of such claims shall be their principle of 
 fiituie action ami con<luct; and they are ready, in i)nrsuanceof the rec- 
 ()}jiiition of such iuinc!i)le, to .t>i\'e assurance to the United States that 
 if (ireat Dritain should at any tinu' hereafter be a bellig'erent while the 
 
 [united States are neutral, (Ireat Jbitain will never advance any claims 
 inconsistent with that jirinciple, such an enj^ajicment for the future be- 
 
 jinji" reciprocally juixcn by both parties; the notes which are exchanged 
 
 mn this subject to l)e presented to the Tribunal of .Arbitration and eii- 
 
 Itored on its recoids."' 
 
 In the i)refatory i)arag'rai>hs he strikes out, at my suggestion, the 
 
 hvords "without prejudice to the arguments ln'retofore ad\anced Ity ller 
 
 |3raiesty's (loveiiMuent." 
 Jveceived at l.L'O a. m. 
 
 No. L't;. 
 
 Mr. FInIi to (iciuriil tSchmck. 
 
 ['I'i'l('i;r;iiii. J 
 
 ^\■,\sIll^•(i roN. .!/'(// ('.. 1S71.'. 
 
 Your telegram re<'ei\«'d during the night. 
 
 An agreement which is to bind the future action of this (ioxcrument 
 I can be made only by treaty, and would reipiire the assent of the Senate. 
 
 Slioidd thcTiibunal decide that a nation is n(»t responsible^ in jiecu- 
 niary damages ler the "oiisequential residls of ;i failni'c to observe its 
 
 t^ 
 
 HBuHm' 
 
 i| 
 
 
 r 
 
 ■'1 *<"' ■''BnK 
 
 
 'hJm 
 
-.>^ 
 
 -.^i 
 
 70 
 
 (JOKRESPOXDEXCE RESJ'ECTING GENEVA AHHITRVTIOX, 
 
 •i 
 
 I \( 
 
 ■(•■'i'f*'' 1 ■; 
 
 '"'^ ■.':$■ 
 
 
 iicutrjil ()l)li,yati()ii.s, sdcli (V'ci.sioii could not fail to be i '^' i'J<m1 as- sii. 
 tliiif? lite qin'«tioM between the two (iovcrnmeiits in the I'uUire. 
 
 It" tlie IJrnish (loveniinciit desire to ope/i iieji'otiatioiiis to df)'i('l\ 
 treaty llie extent of liability for eoiiseriiieiitial damages re sultin'; Imi 
 a failure of observanee of neutral obli<;ations, the rresidenr v <'| ciiic. 
 fully consider any ])roi>osals in that direction. 
 
 Xo. u;. 
 
 Mr. n.sli to (icncViiJ >^clic)i<'J:. 
 ['!'fl(',L;r;u)i.] 
 
 WAsiiiXfJTON, ]\Iaij 7, 1872. 
 
 The President earnestly desires to do everything' consistent with lii>, 
 <bitv to the country and with the f>reat interests to the future of botli' 
 Goverinnents, and to the iirineiples so ini])ortant to civilization as aie 
 involved in the Treaty, to avoid {lie i)ossibility of its failure. This (lovi 
 ernnient is of opinion that the submission ol' what are called the indircnl 
 (claims is within the intent of the Treaty, and that the consideration (iil 
 those claims is within the i)rovince ot the Tribunal. The President aloinl 
 has not the oower to chan,ue or alter tlu! terms or the ]trinciples ot ;is 
 treaty, lie is of rhe oj)inion that the suji';;estion expressed in my iiij 
 struction of l'7th Ai>ril weid to tlu^ extent of his autlutrity, actiuj;' witlil 
 outthe assent of the Senate. The jnoposal sulnnitted in your tele;nraii;i 
 of last evt'oiu};' is based upcni a theory anta,L;onistic to this prin('ii)le. .' 
 
 The President is anxious to exhaust all jnoper elforts tv vc;:ch a set 
 tlement of the important cpu'stions and the vast interests to twi Stato. 
 submitted to the Tribunal of Arbitration, if it can be doiu' without tli> 
 sacrilicc of a prin('ii>le ami consistently with the dii;nity ami the hoiim 
 of the Govern nu'ut. 
 
 He will, therefore, be willinii' to c<>nsider, and. il' p'tSMn't , v, iii vf.escii' 
 for tne consideration of the 8i'nate, any new article ,, hi h nr.v be ]m 
 posed by the P>iitish (lovernnient. which, while it '«'!iic8 the i)rincii)K 
 involved in the pi'esentation of what are called the ii»ti)''ct claims, wii: 
 renu^ve the diflerenees which have arisen iK'tween the f ',m) (lONCiiimer; 
 in their constructions of the Tr<*aty. 
 
 No. L'S. 
 
 (iciicidl .srhcticJc to Mr. FLsli. 
 
 ['I'rli'.l^rillll— l^.\'«.it«-t.] 
 
 London. Mtiy 7, is;:.', 
 
 Your telc.nram (»!' yester(hiy was receixcd this nuM'nini,. 
 
 Alter some discussion, liord l\usscll's nM)tion was posipitned yesKi 
 <lay to lu'xt Momlay, on Lord (lran\ille's i)romise that on oi' beftu'c Hi! 
 day he would prodiu-e the correspondence or unike a stUi'Mneid as to In 
 position of (he m'i;otiations m)\ ';'oin.i:- (m. This was cndy acceded : 
 upon a distinct assurance bein;;' ,., sen that tiu' (iovernment would ii' 
 retract its [)ositi(m, that the claims for indiicct damajics ai'c not witlii 
 
 L'OKI 
 
 jic in! en tiu 
 S(!:-« i<' if i'< 
 |U(iM<lay. 
 rill be dec 
 rcarly, if n 
 )(sirable 
 la\(' a deci 
 Iccuniary d 
 rai <tbli',;,r 
 li terms to 
 jDMsent to 
 llllionjih w 
 feel cont 
 latinnal res 
 Tlu' al)ov 
 |nd have hi. - 
 \ you do no 
 intro'.crsy, 
 OHclude to I 
 
 ion in my t( 
 
 * 
 
 Ait tlu' ]>n 
 , piobably 
 |ainely, the 
 •ve to be 
 pn\ietion t 
 llaiins to wl 
 Init the Uni 
 livorable .'v 
 The jiropo! 
 liew wliich t 
 •tioa and ci 
 iplc, but an 
 pplieable o 
 luy ([lU's', iot 
 liniiient lioh 
 9f I lie Tribu 
 |iii<'erely de 
 i(lo|ii the I 
 
 ^)C!lt. 
 
 ' ill my iele 
 |jid will not, 
 
 oi;.-! ruction 
 puiiunt ]iei'; 
 
 f the Treat 
 
 llclll of t''(! 
 
UTRVTIOX, 
 
 COKKESPONDEN'CE KHSPEL'TIXG GENEVA AKIUTRATIOX. 
 
 71 
 
 m 
 
 e 1 '^^ ;'ai;ii. as si'|. 
 lie I'utuiv. 
 tioiis to <loi'')fi bv 
 i'os re 'iiilf JM'; i'vm 
 I'osideui v\ i'\ care 
 
 *J 
 
 ON, :Mt(ij 7, 1S7L'. 
 
 insistent with lii>j 
 Mio fiitiiro of botli" 
 civiliziitioii as are! 
 liliuo. This (iov! 
 j'alli'd the indim'ij 
 It' consideration oil 
 lie l'resi(U'iit aloiitj 
 tile ]>iiii(M|)U's of ill 
 xpi'esst'd in my iiii 
 ority, aetiii*«' witlil 
 1 ill your teleuniiiii 
 ) tiiis priiK'ijile. 
 »rts to I'ejM'ii a si'tj 
 !us to t\v( Stati'sj 
 done wit hold tbj 
 ity and tlie hoiiut! 
 
 ih-, will pvestM 
 
 U ll II. .V- bo ])1H 
 
 ; ^rs tlie i)riiici|ili 
 lir'i't chuiiis, wi 
 o (ioveinnic! 
 
 N. May 7, lS7:j. 
 
 111,. 
 
 iMstponed yestci 
 on or itel'ore ilii 
 al'-ineid ;is to In- 
 ■; only acceded i^ 
 ■nineiit ^\(tIlld ii' 
 I's lire not witiii 
 
 jic iiileiitioii and si^ope of the reference. To tliis J am sure they will 
 idi.t re if no a};reeim'iit or adjiistineut be made between now aiul ii(>xt 
 
 hciday. 1 have little doubt that they will make a declaration which 
 /ill be decisive a.yainst submission to arbitration, and Avill have the 
 Icarly, if not (|uite, unaiiimous sui)i)ort of botli Houses of rarliainent. 
 
 )csirable and iii'portant a.s it is to both parties and to all nations to 
 hnc a decision of the Arbitrators, that a nation is not responsible in 
 Iccuiiiaiy daiiiajies for coiise<iuential lesuUs of failure lo observe neti- 
 
 I'al obli.i;!itions, 1 see no chance of ,i;ettin,n' this (lovernment to aj^ree 
 tciiiis to a submission so as to ol)tain sucli decision ; they will not 
 
 iiist'iit to unite in askiii,n- the Tribunal for an o])inion on the question, 
 lltlionjih we assure them that wi' expect, aii<l they have every reason 
 feel eontident, that that o])inion would be against aflirmiii.i^' such 
 latioiial responsibility. 
 
 The aliove jiortion of this telefi'ram I have read to Lord (iraiiville, 
 
 [lid have his admission that it is a correct statement. ]\Iay I hope that 
 
 you do not mean to decide that no other way can be found out of the 
 
 lontrovcrsy, and therefore the arbitration and Treaty must fail, you will 
 
 )iicliidc to instruct me explicitly on their jiroposals comiminicated to 
 joii in my telegrams of the oth and (!th .' 
 
 Xo. L'!». 
 
 Mr. Fi.-^/i 'o (IcncyiiJ Sclii-ncl\ 
 
 [TclcMrjiiii.] 
 
 ^N'ASIIINGTON, M((tj S, 187-. 
 I All the ]uoposilioiis made liy the Ibitish (ioveriiment involve covert- 
 I', jirobably without design, v, hat this CJovernmeiit cannot agree to, 
 lamely, the withdrawal from 1h«^ province of the Tribunal what we be- 
 li've to be eiitii'ely within their ei>iii[)cteiiCii. i need not repeat our 
 loiiv!cti<)n thai the Arbitudors have the ri};ht lo decide whether the 
 llaiiiis to whi'th (ireat Britain (d))ects are or are not adnussible, and 
 jliiit [ho I'liited States will oc content to abide their decision, whether 
 Inorablc u' adverse to that class ol claims, 
 
 J The ])roposition of the Ibitish Ciovernment is iipini the basis that the 
 lirw wiiicli they ha\e heretofore jr.esented shall be a ]»rinciple of future 
 |<'tioii and coiiiluct. The\ie\v which they have ])rescmed is not a ]»rin- 
 |il>ic, but an (»i)iiiion .;s to the - onstriu'tion of a specilic treaty, and is 
 lliplicable only to one pendin; lilference on an incidental and teinpo- 
 lliry iiuestion, and c ninot be a princiiile of fuiiire action. Tliistiov- 
 Iriiiiient holds a diriH-tly o'.tposite view with re,i;ard to the c(nii|>('teiice 
 (f tlie 'I'riliunal to consider tlie validity of the claims, and, although 
 Biiccicly desirous of coming to an honorabh; understanding, cannot 
 |dopi the r.ritisli view, or make it the basis of a reciprocal engage- 
 lent 
 
 til 1 1 I • 
 
 111 my ielegram of yesterday i explained that the I'resulent cannot, 
 
 finl will not, withdraw any par', ol what has been submitted within his 
 
 ")!;>! met ion of t!ie intent and spirit otthe Treal\. If the jJritish (iov- 
 
 niaeiit persist in their denuind, the responsibility ol whatever failure 
 
 !' thv' Treaty a>a,\ ensue must rest with them, as you will have ad\ ised 
 
 leiii of t''«! imi>ossil)ility, resnlling as well Irom the constitutional ina- 
 
 f 
 
 3 ' 
 
 
 "'i'Sfi 
 
 I. t 
 
 
 
72 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 COR 
 
 .1 
 
 bility of the Presidont to Avitlidraw wliat tliis (Jovorninont is of()i)iiiin 
 has been subiiuttod Avithiii the intent and meaniiis' of the Tieatv. , 
 from his unwiilin^ness to eoin])i'oniise the ri<>hts and the dij;iiity of ti 
 Goveininen'i by yiehlinj>- to a demand not founded on rij^ht or siistiiiin 
 by any valid eonstruetion of tlie Treaty. 
 
 He liopes, however, tliat tiie British (Jovernment may see the way t> 
 maintain tlie Treaty iu the sn,s>f>estion of a new article, as nientioneilii 
 my tele^vani of yesterday. Should they not ado[)t this sujijjcstion, tli 
 iuferenee will be almost unavoidable that they have deliberately dctn 
 mined to abroj^ate the Treaty. If, however, they ado))t the suiij^estioii 
 you may say that the i)robal>ility is that Conjiiess wdl adjourn ahon 
 the latter part of this month. Time may be saved, therefore, if ncj;! 
 tiations on this point should be eondiu-ted here rather than in Loiiddi 
 If they desire sueh negotiations, it may be advisable to siive time tli, 
 they give instructions to their minister here. 
 
 You will keep me advised as to the jirobable action of the Ibiti.v 
 (Jovernment, so that the l*resident may (•ominunicate the corresi)ond(iiiv 
 to Con<;ress on ^foiulay, in case the British (Jovernment intends i 
 break the Treatv. 
 
 il);mi>'e of 
 Will not ;;'o 
 IkikI (Jran 
 eoiisiitutioi 
 »illiiiU' to 
 lilt.' 
 
 jl aske<l 
 nc. that 
 It he dec] 
 teased imi 
 isatisfact 
 iJIis liOn 
 ^re as fol 
 " I carefii 
 nvs and i 
 take an ni 
 told hill 
 
 No. 30. 
 
 General SoJiencJi to Mr. Fish, 
 
 [Tolc,i!,iaiii.] 
 
 London, Mayd, 1ST2. 
 
 Had interviews with (Jranville yesterday and last even injj'. ('abiin 
 \ouix in session. Instead of ])roposin,i;- new article to Treaty, tin; 
 prel'er intenihan^e of notes, and are willing' to further modify tlici 
 note. I shall tell Lord (Jran ille this moridns' that in your teleji'raiii n 
 April -17 you went as far as is possible to }io without concurrence v 
 Senate. 
 
 Just re(!eived your lonu,- telej^jram of yestenhty, which is boiii; 
 deciphered. Will receive and forward no offer until I know wlia 
 it contains. 
 
 iLord (!i:il 
 fu oil the (j 
 ('• They wii 
 
 bitrators, 
 |y award t 
 promise 
 )iild be CO 
 
 lited Sta1 
 Hbiinal. 
 
 K . 
 
 
 Xo .")L 
 
 Ciencral Svhciick In ^[r. Fish. 
 
 [T.'lo^rjiin.] 
 
 London, M<()/ !>, 187l'. 
 Li a long' interview Avith L«»rd (Jranville, this evening, 1 full 
 ])resented and urged the reviews and jiositions (!ontained in \w 
 telegram of yestertlay. I liii<l this (Jovernment makes a gi'eat ai 
 apparently insupt'rable objection to the adoption of a. new articli 
 on the groiuid that the language describing consc(pu'ntial <huiia,;:i 
 must necessarily be so broad that it w.dld ])robabiy commit iidi 
 (Jovernments beyonil what they would either of them wish to 1* 
 bound. They prefer an interchange of notes, because by that forii 
 they can narrow the agreement so as to relate only to th(> actual poiiii 
 or subjects of dilfereiice. I have stated decidedly as to any iiitc: 
 
 MI.okI (Jrai 
 wH('grai)h yc 
 iki\t he wish 
 
 Sill of what 
 ?v have t 
 rtof Mr. 
 ftiie begiu: 
 tual unwil 
 itlie fiitui 
 Jnands of 
 
IlilTUATION. 
 
 iiiiiont is of opinio; 
 :;• of the Ticatv.;,. 
 I tiio (lij^nity of tli. 
 I ri<>'lit or sustiiiiici 
 
 may see tlio way t. 
 'le, as niontioiit'di' 
 ;liis suft'ji'cstion, tli. 
 (Icliberar^'ly dctci 
 lo))t tlic sn,ij<;i'sti()ii 
 will adjourn aboir 
 , tlioroforo, if ii(>;;i 
 vv than in LoikIhii 
 to save time tlia 
 
 ction of the 1 Iritis'. 
 the (;orres|)0M(lcniv 
 Miiineiit intends \ 
 
 CORKKSPONDENCK RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 7r, 
 
 l.mao of notes, that the rresi(h'nt, without tlie assent of the Sein>t(\ 
 not '^i) l)eyond the suti'ji'estiiui made in your telej;rain of Ajtril 27. 
 
 11(1 (Iranviile se(!ms to thiidc that, so far as the dillicidty ibr want of 
 Jnstitntional i)ower is concerned, the l*resi(h'nt inij^ht jxMhaps be 
 lillin.n' t(» submit notes to tiu' Senate for tlieir advice. Would he do 
 
 lat.'" 
 
 I aslced Lord (Iranvillc.as yon instructed me, to aj^ree, in orcb'r to save 
 lie. that ne,ii'otiation on this jioint may be condu<;ted at Wasliinnton, 
 it lie declines. It wouhl relieve nu; from a painful responsii)ility, in- 
 leased immeasurably by haviiiji' toc(»rres])ond throujih tlie diflicult and 
 isatisfactory medium of the teU'f>Tai)h. 
 
 [jlis iiordship's hist wor<ls, after more than two lionrs' conversation, 
 Mc as tbllows : 
 
 ["I carefidly avoid anythinj>- like menace; but in consequence of the 
 nvs and information you have i>resented to me yesterday and to-chiy, 
 take an unfavorable view of thechaiu-es of any settlement." 
 fj told him 1 was <>etti>ig to be of the same mind. 
 
 No. :V2. 
 (iciicral Srheitcl: /<> Mr. F!sh. 
 
 ^^ 
 
 DON, May 9, 1872. 
 
 teveninji'. Cabiin 
 
 e to Treaty, tiic; 
 
 rther modify tlici 
 
 in your telejirani >< 
 
 )ut cimcurrenci' i 
 
 y, \\lnch is boiii. 
 mtil 1 know wlia: 
 
 [TfU'^Tiuii.] 
 
 London, .1/^^// !% JS72 
 
 []iOnl (;ian\ille jiropost's to modify his anu-nded note, I telej;raphcd 
 Vi on the (Itli, by substitutinj;' : 
 
 |'"Tiiey will not brin.n' ibr consideration the indirect claims bel'ore the 
 bitrators,"' lor the words : ''The ^Arbitrators are not to have reyard, in 
 |y award they may make, to the claims for indirect hisses."' 
 
 promised lum J wouhl submit the clianjic to yon, but tlioui^iit it 
 Duld be considered more objectionable than betbre, inasmuch as the 
 ^litcd States insist that those claims are now rightfully befori? the 
 Hbiinal. 
 
 > 1 
 
 )ON, Mdi/ !>, 1872. 
 
 eveninji', I full; 
 contained in yoii: 
 nakes a ji'reat ;iii 
 
 of a new article 
 Mpieitiial (huiin;:^ 
 lably commit hni 
 
 them wish to 1 
 
 I use by that forii 
 
 :o th<» actual poini' 
 
 ,• as to any iiiti: 
 
 No. :v.',. 
 (rowral *S'(7/('«rA' /o Mr. Fifilt. 
 
 [Tcl(";;riMil.] 
 
 liONDON, Mdi/ lb, J 872. 
 Lord (iranville lias this moment sent a messaii'c recpiesliiif'' me to 
 |e^rai)]i yon immediately that a cabinet will be held this morniii<4', and 
 It lie wislu's me to meet him atterwards. This hioks like reconsidcra- 
 m of what he said yesterday. 1 have come to the conclusion that 
 the\ have, two reasons for their conduct : One, an unwillinji'iie.ss on the 
 pfti I (if ^Ir. (iladstone to seem to retract the extreme i)osition he took 
 at llic be;iinniii<;' as to the int<'rpretation of the Treaty ; the other, an 
 
 fual iinwilliiifiness to adopt any rule to limit claims ai^ainst neutrals 
 the future, their only object beinn' to ;j;et rid of a portion of tin^ 
 d*]ii;iiids of the United istates. 
 
 l^i 
 
 
 ( r 
 
74 COKKESPONDKN'CE KESPKCTIXG GKNEVA AHHITHATIOX. 
 
 ^'(). ;;k 
 
 (ifiirrtil ASrlicjirl: i<> Mr. Fluli. 
 ['rcli'j,riiiii,J 
 
 ].(>M)().\, May 10, ISTJ. 
 
 I.(>i'<l (<i':iii\ illc ii (('W iiiiimtcs siiuM' broiii^lit t»» uw. in ]m'is(>ii tlif 
 Ibllowiii;^ (Iiiiii^lit (ti' an article wliicli, if the (iovciiiiiu'iil ol'tlie UiiittMl 
 States tliiiik lit to adopt, will be accepted by Her ^Majesty's (iovei luneiit. 
 J made no coninient on it, but said I would telegraph it to von innjiedi- 
 ately: 
 
 "Whereas the Government of Her ]5ritaunie INFaJesty hascontendi'd 
 in the re<'ent corresi)ondence with the (Jovernment of tlu^ I'nitcil 
 States as follows, nanudy : That such indirect claims as those lor tlie 
 national losses stated in the (Jas(; ]»resented, on the part of tlu^ (.loveni| 
 ment ol" the United States, to the Tribunal of .\rbitration. at (ieneva.tu 
 have been sustained in the loss in the transfer of the Amei ican commci- 
 eial marine to the J5ritish IIiil;: the enhanced payments of insurane<'; the 
 ])rolon,uation of the war, and the addition of a huiie sum to the <;ost of, 
 the war and tin; supi>ressi()n of the rebellion — firstly, Avere not ineludodj 
 in i'act in the Treaty of \Vashinj;ton, and further, and secondly, shouM 
 not be admitted in princiiile as inrowiny out of the acts committed by ]r,\\- 
 tieular Aessels, alle^^cd to have been enabled to commit depi'edatioiis 
 u])on the sliipi»in,i; of a belli,i;'erent, by reason of such a want of duedili- 
 .nt'iice in the jiertbrniance of neutral oblifi'ations as that which is im- 
 puted by the United States to Oreat Jbitain; ami 
 
 "Wheieas the (lovernnu'nt ol' Jler Ibitannic Majesty has also declared 
 that the principle involved in th<^ secoml of the contentious, lu'reiidu-- 
 fore set forth, will y,uide their comluct in future; and 
 
 "Whereas the I'resident of the United States, while adherin^i' to 
 his contention that the said claims were included in the Tieaty, adopts 
 tor the future the ]»iinciple contained in the secon<l ofthe said contentions, 
 so far as to declaic that it sill hereafter j^uide the (!ondiu't of the (lov- 
 ernment of tln^ United StiUes, and the two countries are therefore af^reedi 
 in this respect : 
 
 "Jn consideration tlMreot'the President ofthe United States, by aiid| 
 with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof, consents that he wi 
 make no claim on the ]iart of the United States, in respect of indirect | 
 losses as aforesaid, before the Tribunal of ^Vrbitration, at CJeneva." 
 
 >' 
 
 O. .).*. 
 
 (lOK.ntJ SrIiiiicJc to Mr. Fish. 
 [i;.\ tract.] 
 
 No. iiL*4.| LEciAJ'ioN Ol' THE United States, 
 
 London, Mai/ 11, 1872. (lleceived ^U\y 27.) 
 Silj : AVhen 1 received last eveninin' fiom Lord (iranville the (lraui>ht ot'l 
 the new article which is ])roi»osea by Her Majesty's (lovernment as ii| 
 suitplement to the Treaty of AVashinmton, i hastened to communicate it 
 to you by teleiiraph. This, w itli the labor of carefully preparinj^- it to bo 
 transmitted in ei]»hei', nuide it impossibh^ to furnish in time for the mailj 
 t)f today, eoi>ies of the ]>apers, less imi)ortant in their character, whicl 
 
IKATIOX. 
 
 COKKK.SFONDKNCl': UE.SPIX'TLN'O GENEVA AKBITKATION. 
 
 75 
 
 '■I 
 
 Mai/ 10, ISTl.'. 
 1^ ill i><'is(»ii tlaj 
 •ii( oltlic IJiiitod! 
 .v's (lovciiiiiu'iit. 
 
 to you iiiuiicdi- 
 
 y liascontciuU'il 
 of the United I 
 as those for tlii' 
 t of tiic- Uoveiiil 
 )n,at (jeiicva, t»i| 
 loiicaii coimiici- 
 )f iiisiiriiiu'c; the 
 nil to the <M)st ofj 
 '10 not iiuthidpdj 
 sccoiidly, slioiiM 
 )iiiiiiitti'(l by ]);ii- 
 lit (h'prcdatioiis! 
 want of due dili- 
 at whicli is im- 
 
 has also <loelan'd 
 
 Jjicc(»iiiii;inic(l that iliaiijiht. These a(,'coiii])aiiyiii.u' pajiers consist of two 
 [iMiti'S with tlieir i'es[>eetive iiiehisiires, of all of which J send copies 
 
 lllliW. 
 
 Tile lii'st is a note of the lOlli instant, addressed to me by Lord (Iran- 
 Iville. ii'capitulatin;;' in a j;eiiei'al and coinpendions way what had re- 
 Iceiitly passed lieiween us, and conclndin;; with the information that 
 lillKinuh tliey tiiink it heloiiys to the (lovernment of the Tnited States 
 |to fiiiiiie the sniijicsted Article, yet, in onh'i' to meet our wishes and to 
 L;ivc any inconvenient thlay. they would transmit a dian;;htof an Article, 
 Iwliicli if the (lovernment of the United States tliinlc lit to a(h)i)t will ho, 
 iiccei)ted by Her Majesty's (loverniueiit. Acconipaiiyiii,i>' this note and 
 |ilMiidcd to it ai'C a copy of the drait.uht or memorandnm. in relation to n 
 |]»ro|iose(l exchan^i'e of notes on the snbjec-t, which Mascomnmiii(!ated to 
 liiie oil the 0th instant, and a coi»y of a memorandum which he made of 
 lone of our se\-eral iiitervie\ s, beinj;' tiiat of the .stli instant, when I coin- 
 limiiiicaled to him the substance of youi telejiiani of the Ttli. and iii- 
 |fniiiie(l him that the President woidd bt^ willin,ii to consider, and if pos- 
 [sible would ineseiit to the Senate, any new Artich^ which mi.;;lit be pro- 
 Iposcd by the j'.rilish (ioverniiU'iit, 
 
 The second is ihe brief note from Lord (iranville, also of tlu^ 10th 
 liiistant, with which he transmit ted the draiiiiht of the Article referred toiii 
 lliis lirst. 
 
 But the draught which he inclosed was not in fact and precisely, in 
 Iteriiis, the one which I have tele^rai>hed to you. After it had lieen 
 Icopied and i)repared to be seiit in cipher. Lord 'I'enterden <;ame in haste 
 Ito the Legation from Lord (iranville to recall ir, and substituted the 
 liiineiided form which 1 Ibrwarded to you. I ju'cserve and send you a 
 copy of the drauulit which was withdraw ii, as well as of the one which was 
 
 itions, hereiiilR'-^ljj,,.,|]y submitted, simply as niarkin;^' a step in the ]>ro]nress of the 
 liieji'otiation. 
 
 As these two notes, with their inclosures, were of the same date, and 
 Idelivered at the same time, 1 acknowled^^cd the icceipt of the whole 
 Itoji'etiier, statiii,u' that I would immediately transmit the Article to you 
 Jhy telejiiaph, and that 1 did not doiilit it would be considered at once 
 Iby my (lovernment, and the result of that consideration communicated 
 Ito me throiijih the same medium, and with as little delay as ])ossil)le 
 land ill the same friendly si)irit in which the ]U()posal of ller ^NLijesty's 
 
 ile adheriii'^' to I 
 e Treaty, a«loi)ls| 
 said contentions, 
 let of the (.lovl 
 therefore agreed 
 
 States, by and] 
 'iits that he will 
 >cct of indiret't 
 it (leneva." 
 
 ICiovernment ha<l bet'ii offered. A copy of my note of acknowledg- 
 liiient is inclosed lierew ith. 
 
 This eveninj; I have received from Lord (Iranville a note, for the tirst 
 Itiiiie formally acknowledjiing the receipt of your dispatch to me of the 
 Jldtli of April, a copy of which 1 had cominuiiicate(i to him on the Lst 
 ■instant. This note, altliou.uh dated on the Otli, has obviously Just been 
 Iwritten. and is now delivered to me antedated in order to keep up the 
 |clironoIoj>ical se(pience and lo,u,ical conuectiiui of the corres[)oiuleuce. J 
 
 |traiisinit lierewith a copy of it. 
 
 * # * * * # # 
 
 I have the honor to be, sir, vour obedii'iit servant. 
 
 i:s, 
 
 ived Mi\y 27.) 
 e the drauii'ht ofj 
 loverninent as ill 
 communicate itl 
 'eparinji'it to kj 
 ime for the iiiai' 
 haracter, wliiil" 
 
 IJOBT. (\ SCIIENCK. 
 
 Hon. IlAMir/rox Fisii, 
 
 tSccrctari/ of tStafc. 
 
 SlK 
 
 [ liiclosuic I ill Xi). I!.").] 
 
 ]C(irl (JraniiUe to (ivneml ISchencl: 
 
 FouEKiN On-iCK, May 10, 1872. 
 Ill I'eidyiii,:.^' to the communication which you made to me on the 
 
 ■'i 
 
 II i M 
 
 ,,' 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 nm^Hnj 
 
 .X 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 . f 
 
 J^^f^^HK: 
 
 ^" 
 
 ■^imK 
 
 
 ^^K 
 
 ''. 
 
 w^^ 
 
 
 ;:ftif|«TOB 
 
 
 ffl^^W 
 
 
 ■'^'i-^» 
 
 
 um 
 
 
 W.^M 
 
 
 f^;-7 m 
 
 
 ■■!' '; W 
 
 
 ; -j ;|v^' 1 
 
 
 '^■'F'' 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 ^'m 
 
 
 *'.S 
 
 
 
 
 it-. , i\ UK 
 
 ' m 
 
 i 
 
k; 
 
 COKRKSPONUKNCK RKSFMCCTINCJ GKMCVA AlililTKATION. 
 
 ■v-^j'-V;;''.' 
 
 Stli instant, I IliiiiU it wvW to iccniiitiiliitc tlic recent eoniinnnientions 
 which I liiive hail with you on the snltjcct of tlie ail)iti'ation (»m tlie Al 
 al)aina claims. 
 
 Oil thi' until (^{' A]>\\\ yoii made an int'oiinai «'omnniiiication to nic. 
 which yon snl)scqnentiy rendered oHicial. iiilbrmiiifi' nie that a proposal 
 made by this country »ii a certain basis would be accei)tal»le. Her 
 .Majesty's (ioverniuent thereupon decided to assume the initiative, and 
 they i'ramed upon tliat basis, as they innh'rstood it, tiie ac(;oiiipanyiii;,' 
 draught with a view to an exchaiifi'e of notes. 
 
 This draujiht, which had Ix'cii subjecte(l to various alterations to briii'r 
 it more closely in conrormity with tiie views which you had «'xprosse(l. 
 and to make it, as they Itelieved, more acce|)table to the (loveriiment ol 
 the United States, was delivered to you on the (ith instant. 
 
 Oil theSth instant you coniinunicated to nie a tele<;'rapiiic mossaiic 
 apparently in rei)ly to this drauj^ht, from your Oovernment. of wliicii I 
 iiuhlc th(^ accompanyiii<;' m(>moraiidum. 
 
 Her Majesty's (Jovernment are by this tele,uram invited to jnojtose an 
 article in addition to or in amendment of the Treaty of the Stli of ]Mav. 
 1S71. 
 
 Tlu^ Ti'caty is, in the Judfiinent of Her ^Nfajesty's (loveriMnent, clear 
 and snilicient, and excludes from the arbitration the claims for indirect 
 losses advanced by the Government of the United [States. It is there- 
 tort! dillicnlt tor Her Majesty's (Jovernment to take the initiative iu the 
 manner the Unitid Htates have proposed. , 
 
 They think that it l)elon<>s to the (Jovernment of the United States, 
 to whos(> fri<'ndly sniiji'cstions the eommnnications which have taken 
 ])lace since the date of Mi'. Fish's reply to my letter of tlu^ -bth of 
 March have been due, to frame the snji<;ested aiticle; yet, iu onler to 
 meet their wishes and to save any inconvenient delay, 1 will transmit to 
 you a drauLjht of an articU' w liicli,if the (loveriiment of the United States 
 think iit to adopt, will be accepted by Her Majesty's (io\-eriiment. 
 
 1 have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, yonr most 
 obedient, humble scj'vaut, 
 
 (iRAXVlLLE. 
 
 •1 IT, '■';■■ 
 .1 . ji ■ 
 
 -:^^ 
 
 
 [Inilosiiic '2 ill \(i. I).").] 
 
 Mciiiorandum. 
 
 The United States (lovernment claim, and insist upon their claim, that, 
 under the Treaty, (claims for tlu; indirect losses which have been ))ut for- 
 ward are admissible to be considered by the Arbitrators, althonyli 
 they do not expect, and never have exiieeted, a i)ecuniary award et 
 damai^cs ibr such claims. (Jreat llritain denies that such claims eoiiie 
 within the scope or province of th(^ Arbitrators to consider or decide 
 upon. 
 
 The arj;umeiitative discussion has ended, leaving each i)arty adheriiij;' 
 to their jiosition. 
 
 The I'nited States (iovernnieiit, in this condition of things, have been 
 willing to accept a ])roposal from (ireat lUitaiu that in consideration of 
 not i)ressing for a i)(>cniiiaiy award on thes(! indirect claims, (Jreat l>rit- 
 aiii would on her i»art agree to engage not to advance in the future in 
 any case, when she should be a lielligerent and the United States a neu- 
 tral, such claims Ibr indirect damages as are put forwai'd by the United 
 States (Jovernment in the case presente<l ou their behalf to the Tribu- 
 
 Sir: 1 hav 
 article refern 
 
 1 have tlie 
 obedient, hui 
 
 (Jeiieral Sc 
 
 
COURKSPOXDKN'CK llKSI'HCTINd (iKNi:VA AlllJITRATIOX. 
 
 77 
 
 ))iiiiuiiiici)tioiis 
 ion (»M tlic Al 
 
 licatioii to inc. 
 li;ir !i proposal 
 •cptiihlc. Ilcr 
 initiative, iiiid 
 acu'onipiiii.viii;; 
 
 ations to briny 
 
 \;u\ cxpressi'il. 
 
 (lovciiiiiient (il 
 
 It. 
 
 ipliic luossniic 
 
 Mit, of wiiicii 1 
 
 I to ])iopo.so ail 
 he Sth of May. | 
 
 cninuMit, elcai 
 ins for indirect 
 ^. It is tlierc- i 
 iiitiative in tlic 1 
 
 United States. ^ 
 L'h have taken J 
 of the liOth of i 
 vet, in orch'r to | 
 vill transmit tc || 
 
 I'nited States i 
 
 eninient. 
 
 sir, Your most 
 
 lANVlLLE. 
 
 iial of Arbitration at (leneva, and to make that I'eeipiocaliy the nde for 
 Hie fiitare. (Ireat IJritaiii is understood to object to this on tiie j;roiind 
 thai an ajireemeiit not to ])ress for eoinpensation for these indirect 
 claims is not siiflicieiit, because the Ail»iliators in that case miyht, them- 
 selves, i»roceed to take them into coiisitU'iation and make them tin' sub- 
 ject of all award. And, therefore, (Jreat Ibitain lias oiiiv liceii viUiii;;' 
 to cslablisli the rule in re;;ard to indirect dama;^t's on condition that tlie 
 American part of the Case at (leneva which puts forward tinse particu- 
 lar chiiins shoidd be entirely withihawii from the eonsideiation of the 
 Arltitratois. 'riie I'resith'iit holds that lie hasjiower to jiive iiisiinctions 
 ill rej^ard t(» the nianancmeiit of the Case before the Ari)itratois, and 
 llicrcfore ci)uld direct that these eiaiins should not hr pre.ssnl for an 
 award. JJnt inasiniudi as the (Jovernmeut of the United States hold 
 that tlie claims are admissible to be considered by \] Arbitialors iiiidcr 
 llic I'leaty, he cannot withdraw tlu' claims as not ix'iii,^' ri,!;htfully put 
 torward without its beinii;" such an alteration of the terms and prineiph'S 
 (if the 'I'leaty as is inconsistent with his uiider>;taiidiiij;" of it, and tlu^ 
 interpretation which has been juit upon it l)y his ( iovernmeiit. 
 
 Tlie 'I'reaty il.M'lf, however, may be amended in sueh a manner as to 
 accomplish the object and remove all ditfereiices between tin* I wo (!ov- 
 ciiiMiciits arisiii<>' out of their dilfereiit interpretations of its i)rovisioiis. 
 
 (leiicral Scheni'k is therefore^ authorized to state that the President 
 will be willing;' to consider, and, if possible, will present for the consid- 
 eration of tli<! Senate, any new article fur the Treaty which may be ])ro- 
 posed by the llritish (JoveriinuMit, which, while it settles the jirinciple 
 involved in the presentation of what are called the indirect claims, will 
 remove the ditferenees which have arisen between the two (iovernmeiits 
 ill the coiisideratiou of the Treaty. 
 
 The President is earnestly desirous to do everythiii};- ctuisisteiit with 
 his duty and with the great interest for the future of both countries, 
 and to preserve i)riiu'i|)les, so important to civilization as he thinks art; 
 involved in the Treaty, of whicli he is anxious to prevent the failure, 
 and to this end he is willin;;' to exhaust all ])roper efforts as fai' as eau 
 be done without abaiidonin.Li' any ]»rinciple and consistently with the 
 honor and (liynitv of both (ioveriinients. 
 
 ir claim, that, 
 
 been put for- 
 
 tors, althou^ili 
 
 liary award el 
 
 il claims come 
 
 ;i(ler or deeidi' 
 
 larty adheriiiu 
 
 11, us, have been 
 insideration nl 
 lis, (Jreat IJrit- 
 the future in 
 1 States a neii- 
 by the United 
 ■ to the Tribii- 
 
 [ l"iiclii>iii'>' :') in Xii. :l."i.] 
 
 J'Jarl GranriUc to (Jcnrntl Scliotch'. 
 
 5: Foinncx Oi-fick, .l/^f/y 10, 187i\ 
 
 Siu: 1 have the honor to transmit to you herewith the *drau,i;ht of an 
 article referred to in my juecedin^' note of this day's date. 
 
 1 have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sii', your most 
 nltcdieiit, humble servant, 
 
 GPtAyVlLLE. 
 
 General Sciiex<!k, d'c, ilx'., ttv. 
 
 * For (Iraiiiilif of the arti 
 
 SI'l' Xi>. '■> 1. 
 
*%» 
 

 ^> 
 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-S) 
 
 /> 
 
 ^ .5i^4 
 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 If 1^ IS^ 
 
 0^ Ki2 11122 
 S lit ■" 
 
 Is 
 
 2.0 
 
 i4 
 
 U ill 1.6 
 
 V] 
 
 
 ■^^f 
 
 
 ^-J 
 
 
 '^1^V# 
 
 7 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sdences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 
 
 (716) 87!2-4S03 
 
 ^ 
 
 iff 
 
 V 
 
 
 % 
 
 o 
 
 .V 
 
 4^ 
 
 "^Jk 
 
 c,\ 
 
 -L 
 
 V 
 
 <^ 
 
 

 
h •■:■',;.■ 
 
 ""■T'. * ; 
 
 Vr'^''?-:- 
 
 
 ;i.!'-;":!f .' 
 
 
 
 78 CORRESPOXDKNCE RESl'KCTING GENEVA ARI51TRATI0N. 
 
 [Inclosiirc 4 in No. li.'i.] 
 
 General Schcnclx to J'Jarl Granville. ..,,,'' , 
 
 ' Legatio>m)f THE United States, 
 
 London, May JO, 1871*. 
 
 3Iv Loill): 1 liiivc tlu! lioiior to iU;kii()\vl(',t;c the reeiupt, at 4 o'clockl 
 }>. ni. today, of yonv note of tlii- date, in which you take oc(;asioii tdf 
 recapitulat*^ some recent eoinimuiication.s we Iiavo Iiad with ea(!li otlici 
 on the subjeet of the Arbitration on tlie Ahibania chains, und to state] 
 brierty, accordinji' to your nnderstandinji' and note of tlie transactions, 
 what occurred snbseciuently in consequence of those coniniunicatioiisJ 
 You refer to and furnish nie at tiie same time with copies of a draught oti 
 a ])ro[)osed note; delivered to uie on the (Jth instant, and your nieiiid [ 
 randuin of a conversation 1 had with you afterwards, at an interview 
 ou the Sth instant, in which it was suyf,'ested to you to propose aiil 
 article in a«ldition to. or in amendment of, the Treaty of the 8th oil 
 May, 1871. 
 
 This su. Honest ion of a Treaty stipulation, you will renu'mber, was madtl 
 in conse(iuence of the failuie to obtain from you any draught of a note 
 which, in the opinion of the Government of the United States, was in 
 conformity with the proposal which Mr. Fish telegraphed me on tluf 
 li7th of April, as I informed you he was led to expect would be made. 
 
 Your Lordship ]»roceeds to say that the Treaty is in tlie judgment oil 
 Her Majesty's Governjnent clear and suttlcient, and excludes from the [ 
 Arbitration tl»e claims for indirect losses advanced by the (lovernmeiitl 
 of the United States, and that it is therefore <litlHcult for her Majesty'," 
 Government to take the initiative in the numner the United States havel 
 proposed ; that Her Majesty's Government think it belongs to the Gov 
 ernment of the United States, to whose friendly suggestion the comma 
 nications which have taken [)lace since the date of Mr. Fish's reply toj 
 your letter of the L*Oth of March have been due, to frame the suggested! 
 article; but yet, in order to meet their wishes and to save any ir. onveii 
 lent delay you will transmit to me a draught of an article, which, ifl 
 the Government of the United States think tit to a<lopt, willl)e accepted j 
 by IJer Majesty's Government. 
 
 .Vnd 1 have also to acknowledge the receii)t of another note of this I 
 ilate from Your Lordship, which was delivered to me at the same tiiiic.j 
 in<'losing the draught of an article in the i>receding one referred to. 
 
 I will hasten to communicate immediately by telegraph this dranglit] 
 to my (Joveriunent; and I doubt not it will be considered at once, and 
 the result of that (consideration communicated to nw through the saiiic 
 medium, iind with as little delay as jtossible, and in the same friendly | 
 s])irit in which your proi)osal is offered. 
 
 1 have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, my Lord, Y'oiu I 
 Lordshii>"s most obedient servant, 
 
 KOIJT. C. SCIIKNCK. 
 
 [IiK'losii'c Ti ill No. ;!'».] 
 
 Earl Granville to General ISeheneh: 
 
 FoKEiGN Oi rc'E, May 0, 1872. 
 Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Mr. Fish's I 
 dispatch of the Kith April, which you communicated to me on the 1st 
 instant. I abstain from addressing any observations to you on the 
 
RIUTRATION. 
 
 COURESPONDENCE UESPECriNG GEN'EVA ARBITK.VnOX. 
 
 79 
 
 iTi-yo Stati:s, 
 'Ion, Mill/ JO, 187L'. 
 reeiiipl, at 4 o'clock | 
 oil take oc<;asi(ni tn 
 had with each otlicil 
 claims, ijid to statif 
 ot the transactions,! 
 se com iimiiicat ions, 
 opies of a draught (it| 
 lit, and your menid 
 
 Iciior of'thiit dispatch pendin.ii' the result of the conimunications which 
 \i\\v now |)assing between us, and which it is the earnest hope of Her 
 piitji'sty's tioverninent may lead to a satisfactory settlement of the 
 [(liK'stions under discussion between our two liovernments. 
 
 1 have tiie honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most 
 lolicdient, humble servant, 
 
 GJtANVlLLE. 
 
 (iKNKUAL SCIIEXCIC, d'C, dr., d'C. 
 
 Xo. 30. 
 
 The following" dispatch was published in the supplement to the 
 rds, at an interviowHLoiidoii (lazette, i\Iay 17, and commnnicated, in a(!cordance witii in- 
 
 stnu'tions from his (lovernment, by Sir Edward Thornton in a note 
 Idati'd ]day 31, 187:i. (deceived June 1.) 
 
 you to projiose an I 
 'reaty of the 8th oil 
 
 •emember, was madt'i 
 y draught of a note 
 iiited States, was in 
 graphed lue on the I 
 '(!t would be made. 
 5 in the Judgment ofj 
 d excludes from the 
 by the (lovernment 
 lit for her Majesty's [ 
 United States have 
 belongs to the Govj 
 ■gestion the comniii 
 
 Mr. Fish's reply to I 
 rame the suggested I 
 
 save any ii; on veil 
 in article, which, ill 
 >pt, will be accepted 
 
 Mother note of tliis| 
 e at the same tiiiic. 
 one referred to. 
 graph this draught | 
 idered at once, and 
 through the sainr 
 the same friemllv 
 
 ion, my Lord, Your I 
 
 ('. SCIIKNCK. 
 
 c'E, May 0, 1871]. 
 ipt of Mr. Fish's 
 I to me on the 1st I 
 lis to you on tlic| 
 
 IJarl GranrUk to Sir E. Thornton.* 
 
 Foreign Office, May 13, 1871.'. 
 
 Siu : Tier ^Majesty's Government have refrained from continuing an 
 laigmnentative discussion with the (xovernmeut of the United States 
 Jiipon the scope and intention of the Articles in the Treaty of Washing- 
 |toii relating to the Arbitration on the "Alabama claims." 
 
 There Jire, however, some passages in Mi\ Fish's despatch on this 
 
 Lsiibject of the IGth ultimo, ujton which it seems desirable that, for your 
 
 ()wn information, and for use in any future communications with the 
 
 (iovernmeiit of the United States, you should bo put in possession of 
 
 [the views of Uer Majesty's Government. 
 
 In the tir' c place, Mr. Fish takes exception to the assertion in my 
 [letter of the 20th of March, that although it is true that in some of the 
 earlier letters of Mr. Adams, vague suggestions were made as to possible 
 liabilities of this country, extending beyond the direct claims of Ameri- 
 can citizens for specilic losses arising from the capture of their vessels 
 by the "Alabama," " Florida," " Shenandoah," and "Georgia," no claims 
 were ever defined or formulated, and certainly none were ever described 
 l>y the phrase "Alabama claims," except these direct claims of Amer- 
 lican citizens. 
 
 3Ir. Fish states that I cannot be supposed to intend more than to 
 Isiiy that the "hums for indirect or national losses and injuries were not 
 "formulated" by the United States Government, and theainount thereof 
 jst't forth in detail and as a specilic demand. 
 
 I di<l not, however, coiihne myself to saying that no claims of this 
 I nature were ever defined or formulated, but ad<led that no such claims 
 had ever been "described" as "Alabama claims." 
 
 31r. Fish admits that the claims for indirect or national losses were 
 I not formulated or defined, but proceeds to cite various passages in ihe 
 |('oiTespoiidence in which lie considers that tiiey were brought forward. 
 He does not mention one instance in which they weie described as "Ala- 
 bama claims." 
 
 The fact is that, throughout the correspondence, the representations 
 nuKJe by the United States Government respecting the actual claims 
 lor injuries sustained by American citizens from the depredations of the 
 "Alabama" and other cruizers Avere interspersed with complaints of the 
 
 * Fur le^tly ul' Mr. FImL tu tliiu cuuiuiunit'iitiuii, hoo No. 57. 
 
: 1' 
 
 :i .. 
 
 i 
 
 
 s-w:''it!! 
 
 
 ■tP 
 
 
 mm 
 
 
 80 
 
 CORRESPONDKNCE llESPECTINa GENEVA Alt»ITRA.TION. 
 
 .snpi)()s('(l i)r('iniiture rccogiiitiou of tlic, bcllijiercnt lijihts of the ConiViij 
 (inito iStiitcs by the issue of Her ^Majesty's I'roelaiuatioii of Xeiitr:ihtj,f 
 and of the ju'oceeilinys of bU>cka<le-rnniiers. 
 
 Nearly all the i)assa<^es eited by Mr. Fish will be found, when rca.lj 
 with their context, to have reference to these complaints, and to the inj 
 definite su;i»f;estions of liability founded on them. On the other haiidl 
 on turniiif*' to the ^Memorandum, inclosed in my lettiu' of the 2()tli ol 
 March, it is apparent that the ]»hrnse " Alabanui claims ''has uniforinlvj 
 been used to distin<;uish tiie actual claims on account of the acts conJ 
 mitted by the "Alabama" atul the other cruizers from these coml 
 ])laints of the "attitude" assumed hy (Jreat IJritain. 
 
 ^fr. Fish lays sreat stress on the statement in ]\Ir. Adams's letter of tliJ 
 UOth of November, ]S(i2, that he was instructed to "solicit redress loJ 
 the natlonul and private injuries already thus sustained." The inJuvicM 
 ihuH sustained were, as appears l)y the inclosures in ^Fr. .V(bims:'s lettcr.j 
 the (h'struction of the " Ocmuljice" and other vessels by the "Alabainii" 
 As already i)ointed out in the Memorandum, Mr. Adams spoke merely iii| 
 the " de])redations committed on the hi^h seas ui>on meichant-vesse!*^" 
 by the "Alabama," and of " the ri^ht of reclamation of tlieGovernnieiil 
 of the United S'.ates for the grievous danmge done to the property oil 
 their citizens," and referred to the Claims Commission under the Treatvl 
 of 17!)4 as a precedent for awarding compensation. There is not a Avonl 
 in the letter to suggest any indirect or constructive claims. 
 
 In the despatch of the IDth of February, 1SU3, INIr. Seward, in a sinil 
 ilar numner, uses the term "its claims" with obvious reference to tiifj 
 claims pat forward by the United States on behalf of American citil 
 zens; those, indeed, being the only claims that liad been indicated iiil 
 the corres[)ondence between Mr. Adams and Lord llussell to which \\ 
 was alluding. 
 
 1 must remark that this despatch of the IDth of Febrimry, 1809, wa>| 
 not communicated to the British Government. 
 
 ]\Ir. Fish has omitted some important words in the next passa;,'f| 
 which he adduces from Ijord llusseirs despatch to Lord Lyons on tlitl 
 L*7th of March, 1801}. 
 
 The despatch gives an account of a conversation with ]Mr. AdaiiisJ 
 at the close of which Lord liussell said that it was hi., belief" that if alii 
 the assistance given to the Federals by British ,'iubjects and Britisilif 
 numitions of war were weighed against similar aid given to theContedl 
 crates, the balance would be greatly in favour of the Federals. 
 
 "Mr. Adams totally denied this proposition. But above all, he saiill 
 there is a uumifest consi)ira(!y in this country, of which the ConfederatJ 
 Tioan is an additional proof, to ])roduce a state of exasperation in AiiieiT 
 iea, and thus bring on a war with Great liritain with a view to aid tiitl 
 Coidi-derate cause, and secure a monopoly of the trade of the Southeiii 
 States, whose independence these conspirators hope to establish Inj 
 these illegal and unjust measures." 
 
 Mr. Fish omits the words "of which the Confederate Loan is an addil 
 tional i)roof," which, taken with the context, show that Mr. Adams \va> 
 then speaking, not of the case of the "Alabama," but of the assistaiiw 
 in nu>ney aiid materials which he considered was im])roperly renderdj 
 to the Confederate States by blockade-running and (he Cotton Loan. 
 
 ]Mr. Adams's letters of the 7th of April and 20th of ^May, and Lonii 
 IkUssell's letter of the 1th of ^Nlay, 18(i,j, are (iommented on in tlnl 
 Memorandum, I'art II, and it is unnecessary for me to make any hiij 
 tlier observations on them, as Mr. Fisii docs not reply to those whicli " 
 have already olfered. Whatever nia.\ have l)een the i)urpose to n! 
 ([uire indemnilication, no claim was presented or nolilied, tind tin] 
 
 l'H'van< 
 
 e"Al 
 
 The < 
 
 Her 
 
 le A PI 
 
 1 tears 
 
 vision 
 
 DM. B( 
 
 cordim 
 
 ;., '' i t 
 inn of 
 Itions o 
 inis fo 
 iiiiiis ai 
 
 bn 
 
 V 
 
 I There 
 snbini 
 . connei 
 llior cla 
 .'tober, 
 lajesty's 
 Viipensa 
 lostion 
 |1 have 
 le claims 
 liins." 
 ritaiu fo 
 niarin 
 
AUHITRATION. 
 
 COURESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARIUTKATION. 
 
 81 
 
 lijihts of tlie CoiilHl 
 nation of Xt'iitrulityJ 
 
 )P found, when roajl 
 )laints, juul to the iuj 
 
 On the other liaml, 
 letter of the 2()tli oil 
 hiinis '' has unifoiiiihj 
 lint of the acts coiiil 
 t'l'S from these ooinj 
 ain. 
 
 . A(hiins\s h'tter of tliJ 
 ) " s()li(!it redress lotl 
 ained." The inJuvuM 
 n :Mr. AdaniJ-'s k'ttor.l 
 'Is by the "Ahibainal 
 (htnis spoke merely ni 
 on merchant- vessel*;"! 
 ;)n of theGovernnieiil 
 10 to the property iitl 
 iion under the Treatvl 
 
 There is not a word 
 e claims. 
 
 ]\Ir. Seward, in a si ml 
 vious reference to tli(| 
 alf of American citi| 
 lad been indicated 
 L liussell to which L4 
 
 f February, 1809, waJ 
 
 in the next passage! 
 o Lord Lyons on tliJ 
 
 )n with Mr. Adauis| 
 hi., belief "that if ill 
 iubjects and liritijsli 
 <>iven to theConfed| 
 he Federals, 
 lit above all, he saidl 
 hich the Confederate! 
 xasperatiou in Aiiioi f 
 ith a view to aid tlie| 
 •ade of the Southeni 
 ope to establish Ini 
 
 jate Loan is an adilij 
 Ithat Mr. Adams \vii>f 
 )ut of the assistaiR'ij 
 |im])roi)erly rendemlj 
 It he Cotton Loan. 
 Ill of ^May, and Lon!! 
 jiimenteil on in tint 
 Ime to make any liiij 
 Ipiy to those whiclii 
 It lie purpose to ivj 
 [r not died, and tli<| 
 
 kevanc's of which coeiplaint was made were in noway ideutitied with 
 Le "Alabama claims." 
 
 iTlie despatch of the 14th of February, 18(50, was not cjinmunicated 
 
 Her i\Iajesty's Government ; but, on referring to the 3rd volume of 
 
 le Appendix to the American Case, p. 028, in which it is given, it 
 
 )poars to refer to the possibility of fresh negotiations in regard to a 
 
 ivision of tlie Neutrality Laws and to Lord Kussell's refusal ot arbitra- 
 
 Lii. IJotii tiiese subjects are referred to at page 025, and the despatch 
 
 Lording'y concludes, after t'.ie paragraph quoted by Mr. Fish, bj' say- 
 
 \ff, " 1 think that the country would be unanimous in declining every 
 
 iriu of negotiation that should have in view merely prospective regu- 
 
 Itioiis of national intercourse, so long as the justice of our existing 
 
 liiius for indemnity is denied by Iler Majesty's (Tovernment, and those 
 
 faiius are refused to be made subject of friendly but impartial examina- 
 
 )ii.'" 
 
 [There can be no pretence that the claims which Lord Russell refused 
 
 sid)niit to arbitration extended to indirect claims. The proposal arose 
 
 connection with "a claim for the destruction of the ship '2^ora' and 
 
 [her claims of the same kind," (see Mr. Adams's letter of the 23rd of 
 
 •tober, 1SG3,) and Lord ilussell, in rejdy to it, stated ihat Her 
 
 lajesty's Government must decline "either to make reparation and 
 
 liiipeiisation for the captures made hy the '■Alahama,^ or to refer the 
 
 Wstion to any foreign State." 
 
 il have already pointed out that no importance can be attached to 
 
 [e claims of private citizens being spoken of by Mr. Seward 5is "our 
 
 lims." The "claims of citizens of the United States against Great 
 
 ritain for damages, &c., by means of depredations upon our commer- 
 
 niarine committed on the high seas hy the 'Sumter,' the 'Alabama,' 
 
 |e 'Florida,' the 'Shenandoah,' &c.," of which a summary was annexed 
 
 I the despatch from jMr. Seward to IMr. Adams, of the 27th of August, 
 
 |0(), communicated to Lord Stanley, and which are utldenitibly private 
 
 dins, are mentioned in that despatch as " the claims upon which we 
 
 Isist," and " our claims." 
 
 [The next desjiatch referred to, that from jMr. Seward to Mr, Adams, 
 
 the 2nd of May, Avas likewise not communicated to Her Majesty's 
 
 )veniment. The context clearly shows that the " injuries" from " the 
 
 ht unfriendly or wrongful proceeding" referred to the "concession of 
 
 tlligerency." JMr. Seward, in a preceding paragraph, says, " I feel quite 
 
 Ltain that the balance of faults has been on the side of Great Britain. 
 
 jrst, the concession of belligerency ought not to have been made; 
 
 |coii(l,u])oii our earnest appeals it ought to have been earlier rescinded." 
 
 le despatch goes on to state the conviction of the American people 
 
 lat "tiio proceedings of the British Government in recognizing the Con- 
 
 levacy were not merely unfriendly and ungenerous, but entirely unjust." 
 
 [Ill another part of JMr. Fish's despatch complaints (not claims) are 
 
 meed as having been made bv INFr. Adams on the 30th of December, 
 
 )0J, Uth and 2'7th of March, 1803, and 28th of April. 
 
 ITlie "acts" complained of in the lirst extract will be seen, on reading 
 
 le entire passage, to have been that " vessels owned by Ilritish subjects 
 
 live bi'iMi and are yet in the constant jnactice of departing from British 
 
 frts laden with contraband of war and many other commodities, with 
 
 le intent to brealv the blockade and to ])ro('rastiiiate the war." 
 
 jThc despatch of the 14th of ^March, 1S03, refers to certain inter- 
 
 |]>tc(l corresiiondence relating to the proceedings and sup))Osed inten- 
 
 )iis of (/oni'edciate agents, blocK'ade rniiiiers, and to thi^ Cotton Loan. 
 
 Vt a 
 
 II 
 
 i\ 
 
82 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 ' -ti .. ^ ■• 
 
 -■ -t - 
 
 
 
 :^-<i'vJ- 
 
 
 
 The complaint on the 27th of March, as I have already explainoj 
 also referred to the Cottou Loan and to these proceedings of CouiederaiJ 
 agents. 
 
 The desjiatcli of the 28tli of April begins, " I am instructed to iuionl 
 your Lordship that the (loverimient of the United States has heard witi 
 surprise and regret of the negotiation of a loan in this city," and prJ 
 ceeds to state that " this transaction must bring to an end all conceJ 
 sions, of whatever form, that may have been heretofore made for initij 
 gating or allevinting the rigors of the blockade in regard to the ship 
 ment of cottoi, , ' and concludes, "I am sure that it is with thegreatestl 
 reluctance it" |tlie United States Government] "flnds itself compelleJ 
 by the oFensivti acts of apparently irresponsible parties, bent upon carl 
 rying on hostilities under the shelter of neutrality, to restrict rathel 
 than to expand the avenues of legitimate trade. The responsibility m 
 f/m' [i.e., for this restriction] 'must rest m.ainly upon those who, foJ 
 motives best known to themselves, have laboured and continue to laboi) 
 so strenuously and eft'ectually to furnish the means for the protractioi| 
 of the struggle." 
 
 I have reviewed the passages cited by Mr. Fish in support of his argiii 
 ment, that the "Alabama claims" included, other claims than those loif 
 the actual losses of American citizens, in order to show how little sup 
 port they attbrd to it; but tliis is almost superfluous, as a conclusive! 
 answer is aflbrded by the very volume of despatches from which Mr| 
 Fish has taken these extracts. 
 
 3Ir. Keverdy Johnson, in a despatch to Mr. Seward dated Febriiar\| 
 17, 1869, (|>age 707,) containing a report of his negotiations witii He 
 Majesty's Government, states, " I hear that in some quarters objectioiiil 
 are made to the Claims Convention, for which I was not prepared. 
 
 "1. It is said, I am told, tliat the claims to be submitted should iioj 
 be all that have arisen subsequent to July, 1853. 
 
 "2. That no pi'ovision is made for the submission of any losses wliiclj 
 our Government, as such, may have sustained by the recognition ot'tlitl 
 insurgents as belligerents, and the depredations upon our coiumerce b| 
 the 'Alabama' and other vessels. . . . 
 
 "As regards the second objection," he urges, "I am at a loss 
 imagine wliat would be the measure of the damage which it suppose^ 
 our Government should be indeuinifled for. How is it to be ascertained 
 By what rule is it to be measured i A nation's honour can have no coiiij 
 pensation in money, and the depredations of the 'Alabama' were ol 
 property in which our nation had no direct pecuniary interest. If it b| 
 said that those depredations prevented the sending forth of other coiiv 
 mercial enteriuises, the answer is twofold : lirst, that if they had beeij 
 sent forth, the nation would have had no direct interest in them; aiitl, 
 second, that it could not be known that any su(;h would have bwij 
 undertaken. Upon what ground, therefore, could the nation deniaiiJ 
 compensation in money on either account i? And if it was received, ii 
 it to go into the Treasury for the use of the Government, or to be (lis) 
 tributed amongst those who may have engaged in suiih enterprises, aiil 
 how many of them are there, and how aie they to be ascertainedl 
 France recognized the insurgents as belligerents, and this may liavJ 
 tended to prolong the war. Tiiis, too, it may be said, was a violatioi 
 of her duty, and affected our honour. If we can claim indemnity m 
 our nation for sucii a recognition by England, we can equally claim ij 
 of France. And who has suggested such a claim as that? 
 
 " IJiit the linal and conclusive answer to these objections is this: 
 
 " 1. That at no time during the war, whether whilst the 'Alabama' aii| 
 
 M^ -* 
 
ARBITRATION. 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 83 
 
 B already explainpdl 
 iliugs of Coui'ederat( 
 
 instructed to infornl 
 tates has heard witi 
 I this city," and pro! 
 
 an end all conceJ 
 ofore made for itiitif 
 
 1 regard to the ship 
 
 ; is witii the greatesti 
 ids itself compelled 
 rties, bent upon carl 
 y, to restrict rathet| 
 The responsibility foi 
 Lipou those who, foil 
 md continue to labon 
 5 for the protractioa 
 
 support of his argnj 
 ilaiius than those loif 
 
 show how little sup 
 Lious, as a conclusivfl 
 lies from which Mil 
 
 ard dated Februarjj 
 egotiations witli Her] 
 e ijuarters objectioii^ 
 i\s not prepared, 
 ubmitted should iioi 
 
 u of any losses wliiclj 
 le recognition of tlia 
 on our commerce b(| 
 
 I am at Ji loss 
 e which it suppose! 
 t to be ascertainedf 
 »ur can have no coid| 
 'Alabama' were 
 
 interest. Ifitbfj 
 forth of other coiiij 
 at if they had beeif 
 erest in them ; and 
 h would have becij 
 the nation deniaul 
 
 it was received, ii 
 nment, or to be disl 
 uch enterprises, om 
 to be ascertained! 
 and this may liavfl 
 lid, was a violatioj 
 claim indemnity l(i| 
 can equally claim i 
 s that? 
 
 ections is this: 
 t the'Alabanui'aii 
 
 LT 
 
 f 
 
 lier sister ships were engaged in giving our marine to the flames, or 
 liiice, no branch of the Government proposed to hold Her Majesty's 
 novenunent responsible, ex(!ept to the value of the property destroyed, 
 Mul that which wouhl have resulted from the completion of the voyages 
 which they were engaged. The Government never exacted anything 
 kn its own account. It acted only as the guardian and protector of its 
 kwn citizens, ami therefore only required that this Government should 
 ^ay their losses, or agree to submit the question of its liability to 
 riondly arbitrament. To demand more now, and particularly to make 
 demand to which no limit can well be assigned, would be an entire de- 
 parture from our previous course, and would, I am sure, not to bo listened 
 by this Government, or countenanced by other nations. We have 
 kbtaiued by the Convention iu question all that we have ever asked ; 
 ^nd with perfect opportunity of knowing what the sentiment of this 
 Jovernment and people is, I am satisfied that nothing more can be 
 ccomplished. And I am equally satistied that if the Convention goes 
 )ito operation, every dollar due on what are known as the 'Alabama 
 flaims' will be recovered.'' 
 If Mr. Johnson was mistaken in the view thus decidedly expressed, 
 might be expected that some notice would have been taken of so im- 
 kortant an error. l>ut j\Ir. Seward's reply of March 3, 18G9, gives no 
 iitimatiou of any dissent whatever. He writes, " Your despatch No. 
 Jl2 of the 17th ultimo, relative to the Protocol and Convention recently 
 jigutd by you on behalf of this Government, has this day been received 
 lud submitted to the President. He directs me to say, in reply, that it 
 regarded as an able and elaborate paper, and would have been com- 
 iiuiicated to the Senate had it not reached here at the close of the 
 Jreseut Session, and that of his Administration." 
 
 Thus, according to an uncontradicted statement in an official des- 
 
 latc'li from the United States Minister in London to the Government at 
 
 Vasliington, officially published by the United States Government, that 
 
 fiovernment had "never exacted anything on its own account," and the 
 
 [laiius " l-noicn as the ^Alabama claims ^^^ had been limited during the whole 
 
 ar, and in the subsequent negotiations up to February, 18G9, to the 
 
 ^aiuis for the value of tlie pro])erty destroyed, and that which would 
 
 lave resulted from thecompletion of the voyages in which the captured 
 
 lesscl.s were engaged. 
 
 I\Ir. Johnson confirmed the statement in his despatch, in a letter to 
 
 Ir. J. A. Parker, published in the "New York Journal of Commerce," 
 
 )lh Novend)er, 1870: " j>Iy instructions, as did those of Mr. Adams, 
 
 |»okod exclusively to the adjustment of individual claims, and no alleged 
 
 )iuniission or omission of the British Government of her duty to the 
 
 luited States pending the war was given in any part of the correspond- 
 
 |ice between the two Governments as having any iuiiueuce upon other 
 
 ]an individual claims." 
 
 It is not easy to understand how a class of claims which had been 
 piown uiuler one appellation for seven years could have suddenly ac- 
 [Hired a far wider and more onerous signihcancc. 
 Mr. Fish relies on Mr. lieverdy Johnson's proposed amendment of 
 le Clarendon-Johnson Convention, on these public or national claims 
 |aving been prominently before the Senate when that Convention was 
 ?ulor advisement, (by which it is to be presumed he refers to Mr. Sum- 
 ler's speech, the only part of the proceedings which was published,) on 
 'ic President's Message of December, 18ul.>, and on his despatch to Mr. 
 fotley of the 2nth of Septeuiber, 18UU. 
 Mr. Johnson's proposal, however, was not to include national claims 
 
 d 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 fit 
 m 
 
 I 
 
 m 
 
ivMw 
 
 km 
 
 "' ■ . '* : ' 
 
 ir iiil 
 
 '•-■ -« * 
 
 
 .*'■'■ ' .' '■* 
 
 <■ ■.: .... •_ ;■- 
 ■ ■ ' ' ■.'•.'-. 
 
 •■•Si'::-: 
 
 ...<>■ _, .'■ ;, •■ 
 
 , ' •'" ■♦■•-■, 
 .," . ' ■■ ♦ ■ 
 
 livr, ^'-t'>l'^ 
 
 
 84 
 
 OORRKSPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 „ ! ■ 
 i ■■* ■it'''' 
 
 H^ 
 
 v- ' ' ■ 
 
 iiO 
 
 :■*.' ■■ . 
 
 ■ (i 
 
 "■ v ■' ■ 
 
 ^< 
 
 
 
 ' *- ■ ■"'. 
 
 i-;: 
 
 ■ ■. %:'« '.• 
 
 under the liOiid of "Alabama Claims,'' but to su])era(l(l tlicin by iiiscrtiiijl 
 certain v,ord>s alter the word.s "agree that," iu the lirst Article of tli«| 
 Coiiventioii. 
 
 Tlad his i)roi)osal been adopted, the Article would have stood thus: 
 "The IIij,'h Contracting Parties agree that" — here comes the iusertioii-j 
 "[all claims on the part of Her Majesty's (lovernmeiit upon the Govern, 
 ment of the United States, and all claims of the Government of tliel 
 United States upon Tier Majesty's Government, andj all claims on tii«( 
 port of subjects of Her Britannic Majesty upon the Government of tlie| 
 United States, and all claims on the part of citizens of the United States 
 upcn the Government of Her Britannic Majesty, including* the so-called 
 'Alabama Claims,' " &:c. 
 
 Mr. Johnson avowedly made this ])roposal, as Lord Clarendon in i 
 formed you in his despatch of the L*2nd of March, 18G1), to introduttl 
 "claims to comi^ensatiou on account of the recognition by the Britisil 
 Government of the belligerent rights of the Confederates," which tliel 
 British Government iniglit balance by " claims to compensation fori 
 damages done to British subjects by Anun-ican blockades, which, if tliJ 
 Confederates were not belligerents, Avere illegally enforced against them." 
 
 Mr. Johnson's belief was that the Convention was unacceptable be 
 cause it did not include national claims on account of the recognition oil 
 belligerent rights, which he purposely distinguished from the "Alabamal 
 claims,'* and was in no respect thereibre inconsistent with his despatch oil 
 the 17th February, limiting the meaning of that expression, Tlie in I 
 formation on which lie founded that belief was derived, as he reportedl 
 to Mr. Fish on the 9th of April, 18G9, from a jtrivate source; and liisf 
 suggestion made in the same desi)atch, that instructions should be giveu| 
 to him to endeavour to supply the omission, was not favourably enter! 
 tained by the United States Government, who telegraphed in reply thiitj 
 " as the Treaty was then b^^fore the Senate no change was deemed advis f 
 able." 
 
 The only intimation, as T have stated, which Her Majesty's Govern 
 ment possessed of the propriety of making anj' demands for national 
 losses having been debated or considered by the Senate, was, by tlje| 
 ])ublication of Mr. Suu<ner's speech, in w hich he urged that England wib! 
 liable for national injuries of the most extensive character ; but thesef 
 injuries were rhetorically dediiced, chiefly from the Proclamation ol| 
 IS^nitrality, and the sujjplies furnished through the blockade. 
 
 The effect of Mr. Sumner's speech in Englan.l was reported by 3Ir,| 
 Johnson to ]\[r. Fish on the 10th of May : " If an opinion may be fornieil 
 from the public press, there is not the remotest chance that the demaiHl> 
 contained in that speech will evc.r be recognized by England. Tlii| 
 universal sentiment will be found adverse to such a recognition, 
 would be held, as 1 hear I'rom every reliable source, to be an abandon I 
 ment of the rights, and a disregard of the honour of this Government." 
 
 Her ]\rajesty's Government never learnt that Mv. Sumner's \ie\\>l 
 were indorsed by the Government of the United States. 
 
 Mr. Fi.sh next mentions his instructions to J\lr. Motley, of the 25th oij 
 September. These instructions, howev(H', were not communicated ti^ 
 Pier INIajesty's (Jovei'nment, and when Mr. Motley told Lonl (Jlarendoiij 
 on the iuth of June, 1809, that the Convention " was ()bje<!ted to becaiD^tl 
 it embraced oidy the claims of individuals, and hud no reference tul 
 those of the two Governments on each other; ami, lastly, that itsettlotll 
 no question, and laid down no principle," he proceeded to speak of tlirl 
 "risk and responsibility" incurred by a Government which couferred 
 belligerent rights, and thus his representations naturally oonnectcil 
 
tBITKATION. 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENliVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 85 
 
 il tlH'iri by iiiscrdiijl 
 liist Article of tliol 
 
 1 have stood tliiis; 
 iiR'H the iiist'itioii-l 
 t upoutlie Govern, 
 ^jovermnent of tliel 
 J all claims on tlitl 
 Oovenmient vt' tlie) 
 f tlie United States! 
 luding the so-called 
 
 jord Clarondon in 
 1809, to introduw 
 itiou by the Britisli 
 lerates," which tlic 
 3 compensation for 
 wades, which, if tin- 
 need against them." 
 IS unacceptable be 
 f the recognition of 
 from the "Alabama 
 vith his despatch ol 
 xpression. Tlie in 
 ved, as he reported 
 ite source ; and lli^ 
 ons should be given 
 )t favourably enter. 
 iphed in reply that 
 was deemed advis 
 
 Majesty's Govern | 
 
 nands for natioiia 
 
 enate, was, by tlje| 
 
 1 that England wib 
 
 laracter; but these! 
 
 Proclamation oil 
 
 ockade. 
 
 [IS reported by ]\Ir,[ 
 
 ion nuiy be fornieiil 
 
 that the demaiKl-r 
 
 ly England. TlicI 
 
 I recognition. 
 
 be an abandon | 
 lis Government," 
 Sumner's vie\v> 
 
 'S. 
 
 \oy, of the 2oth oij 
 communicate<l 
 
 1 Lord (Jlarendoiij 
 >jected to becausol 
 ll no reference ti'l 
 
 ly, that its'^ttleil 
 1 to speak of tliil 
 wliicli couferrciil 
 urallv connected 
 
 llliiMiiselves with IMr. Johnson's proposal with regard to the mutual 
 Icliiinis of the two (Jovernments. 
 
 3Ir. Fish admits that, in his despatch of the U5th of September, he 
 niadc no claim or demand f(U' either direct or indirect injuries." 
 These indirect injuries could not theref<u'e have receive(l the designa- 
 Itiou of ''Alabama dhiiins^' from that despatch. 
 
 indeed, on examining the ertraets which he gives from it with their 
 Icontcxt, it is ;i])i)arent that the "• vast national injuries'' which he states 
 Itluit he presented in it are ascribed to other cau.ses than the acts com- 
 Iiiiitti'd by the Gonfech'rate eruizers. 
 
 The lirst extract, beginning " The nund)er of our ships thus directly 
 I destroyed,'' tS:c., folk)\vs a paragraph comi>laining of the rroclamation of 
 K'entrality : — "' In virtue of the rroclamation, nuxritime enterprises in the 
 ports of Great Britain, Avhich would otherwise have been piratical, were 
 rendered lawful, aiid tltits Great Britain became, and to the end con- 
 tinned to be, the arsenal, the navy-yard, and the treasury of the Con- 
 jfederaey. 
 
 "A spectacle was ihus presented without precedent or parallel in the 
 Ihistory of civilized imtions, Great Britain,'' «S:c. 
 The .second extract runs thus* — 
 
 " We complain th;jt the insurrection in the Southern States, if it did 
 [not exi.st, was continued, and obtained its enduring vitality, by means 
 jof the resources it drew from Great Britain. We complain that by rea- 
 Ison of the imperfect discharge of its neutral duties on the part of the 
 Queen's Government, Great Britain became the military, njival, and 
 jtinancial basis of insurgent warfare against the United States. We 
 Icomplain of the destruction of our merchant marine by British ships, 
 ] manned by British seamen, armed with British guns, dispatched from 
 j British dockyards, sheltered and harboured i:i British ports. We com- 
 plain that, by reason of the policy and acts of the Queen's ^Ministers, 
 [injury incalculable was inflicted on the United States." 
 
 The third extract, respecting the vast national injuries, is followed 
 jin the despatch by a passage explaining the various causes of injury, 
 which Mr. Fish has omitted to notice, " Nor does he attempt now to 
 nieasure the relative eflect of the various causes of injury, as whether 
 by untimely recognition of belligerency, by suffering the fitting out of 
 rebel cruizers, or by the supply of ships, arms, and munitions of war to 
 I the Confederates, or otherwise, in whatsoever manner." 
 
 Lord Clarendon's memorandum of observations on Mr. Fish's des- 
 I patch, like the despatch itself, touched on various topics besides that of 
 the Confederate cruizers, and Her Majesty's Government cannot admit 
 that, because Mr. Motley read a despatch to Lord Clarendon on the 12th 
 of January, 187C, stating that Mr. Fish had not included it "among the 
 papers respecting the 'Alabama claims,'" theri^fore all the subjects men- 
 tioned in it were "Alabama claims." 
 
 Still less can they admit that because Mr. Bernard, in the 14th 
 [ Ciiapter of his work, gave certain extracts from IMr. Fish's despatch, 
 under the head of "xVlabama claims," that despatch became the standard 
 by which the claims known as the "Alabama claims" was to be meas- 
 u:'ed. It happens moreover that, in the extracts given by Mr. Bernard 
 in the chapter to which IMr. Fish refers, the three passages cited by Mr. 
 Fisa in his present despatch as relating to indirect injuries and national 
 losse.s are omitted. 
 
 It oidy renuiins to notice the Presiaent's ]Message of December, 1869. 
 This .Mes.sage does not mention the "Alabama claims," but speaks of the 
 
 m 
 

 ^ 4 
 
 ! •'' 
 
 i.K-: 
 
 v.- . \. 
 
 
 ..:■» ■*-;:'■■ 
 
 ■■<-.J. •*'.!■■■',.■> 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 ;,;■■*:■,> 
 
 i. 
 
 ■■ 
 
 . -" »;• 
 
 1 . 
 
 • 
 
 •J 
 
 ■■ t 
 
 
 ;'■■ 
 
 ■fc 
 
 .y '••' ■' 
 
 ■ 
 
 v.. 
 
 »». 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 • . : ■ ■ 
 
 '■V7 
 
 1 J - 
 
 -4. 
 
 \f. 
 
 &{■ 
 
 v' 
 
 :'./ ■.:'• 
 
 Mi 
 
 '■/ 
 
 1. -■!■ ' 
 
 
 
 
 86 
 
 rORRESPONDENCK RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 "iiijurios rosuUiii}? to the ITiiitod Stnt«'s by roason of tlie course a«lo|tteii| 
 by (iieat liritain (hiriii}i: our late Civil War." 
 
 1 have thus been able to show u])oii the testimony of ^\v. IJeverdvl 
 Johnson, the American IMinister, corroborated on examination by tliJ 
 extracts cited by INIr. Fish, that for the first seven years of the disonJ 
 sion np to 1809, none bnt direct claims were "known as 'iXlabaiiJ 
 claims:'" And that in the oidy authoritative document in wliitlil 
 national indirect injuries were mentioned, ni> to the time of the recpul 
 negotiation, they ^vere not described as "Alabama claims," or asclaimsl 
 of any description. 
 
 Mr. Fish states that "continental jurists and publicists discussfdl 
 the national claims on account of the prolonpition of the war under tliel 
 head of ' reclamations,' having ' (pi'un rai)iu)rt iwlirect, et nullement uii| 
 rapport direct avec les depredations reellement commises par h 
 croiseurs.'" 
 
 The quotation a])pears to be taken from a pamjihlet by Dr. IJliintl 
 sdili, entitled "Opinion impartialesnrla (piestion de 'I'Alabama' et snil 
 la maniere de la resoudre." In this pamphlet Dr. Bliintschli reviews tlie| 
 various i)oints njcntioned by Mr. 8umner in his speei^h in the Senate 
 the 13th of February, 18()1>, including the r<'cognition of beUigereiicyJ 
 In the sixth section he discusses the ett'ects attributed by Mr. Sumiiwl 
 to the acts of the "Alabama" and other vessels, and states that all thel 
 efi'ects are attributable, in the first place, to the cruizers themselvos,! 
 and not to the British Government. "Sa faute ne consiste pas ii avoiti 
 equipd et appareille les corsaires, ma Is a ■ii'aroir itas ewpecho leur arniel 
 nient et leur sortie de son territoire neutre. INIais cette fatite* n'a qu'uii" 
 rapport indirect et nullement un rapport direct avec les depredations 
 reellement commises i)ar les croiseurs."t Dr. Bliuitschli's remark did 
 not, therefore, relate to claims for indirect losses, nor does the woidl 
 "r«';clamations" occur in the sentence, in the paragraph, or in the wliolel 
 section from which the quotation is taken. All that he says is, that tliej 
 default on the part of Great Britain, by which the cruisers escaped, liasf 
 but an indirect, and in no Avay a direct, connection with the depre(lii| 
 tions actually committed by them. 
 
 Mr. Fish gives as a reason for no claims for national losses haviiigl 
 been " defined" or formulated, that Lord Kussell objected, in July, l.SC3,[ 
 to any claims being put forward. As Mi: Adams continued to presciitj 
 claims for the destriu;tion of ])roperty by tlie "Alabama" in August,! 
 September, and October of that year, and numbers of siuiilar dir('(i[ 
 cli.imshave since been presented, Her ^Majesty's Government are unal)le| 
 to see the ibrce of this argument. 
 
 Whatever may have been the reason, the fact remains, that up tol 
 the time .,f the arrival of the British High Connnissioners at AVashiiisT 
 ton, the term "Alabaina claims" had a recognized and well-known mean 
 ing as direct claims, and that no other clai>is had been ])resente<lto tlitl 
 British Government. Xor, indeed, were these other claims even tlieiij 
 presented. 
 
 The American High Gomniissiojiers, as appears by the ,'50th Protocol,! 
 stated that the history of the "Alabama," and other cruizers, showed 
 extensive direct losses, and indirect injury, and that Great Britain had 
 become jnstlj' liable /r>r ///f «(ct,-t of those cruizers and their tenders; 
 that the claims for the loss and destruction of private pro[)erty, whicli 
 had thus far been presented, amounted to about 14,000,000 dollars, aiiil| 
 
 * 'llio italics are Dr. lUiiut.slili's. 
 
 + "Ivovuo do Droit luteniatioiiul et ileLc'gislatiun ccuniiiiitH"," l^Td, pp. 47;)-4. 
 
ARHITRATION. 
 
 )f' tlip course adojifcijl 
 
 rioiiy of ^\r. UoxcrM 
 
 exiniiiiiatiou by tliJ 
 
 yoars of tlie (ifsonJ 
 
 known as '^MahiiniJ 
 
 document in wh'ui 
 
 time of tlie recpiil 
 claims," or as claiiiij 
 
 publicists cliscusspdl 
 r)f the war under tliel 
 nrt, et nullement uil 
 ; commises par h\ 
 
 il)ldet by Dr. IJliintl 
 le 'I'Alabama' et sm| 
 liints(!hli reviews tlitl 
 cell iu the Senate oiil 
 tion of belli^erencyj 
 uted by Mr. Sumiiwl 
 id states that all tk\ 
 ^ruizers thcmselveJ 
 consiste pas ii avoirl 
 s I'lupecM leur arnie [ 
 ette favtt^ u'a qu'iinl 
 ec les depredatioiisl 
 itschli's remark i 
 
 1 nor does the word! 
 iph, or in the whokl 
 
 he says is, that tliel 
 
 •uisers escaped, liasl 
 
 with the deprcdivl 
 
 onal losses having) 
 cted, in July, 18C3,[ 
 itinued to prescntj 
 bama" in AujiastJ 
 s of similar direct 
 rnment are nnaWcl 
 
 Mnains, that up to 
 )iiers at AVasliiii;'! 
 
 well-known niciiii [ 
 'U presented to tlu' I 
 
 claims even tlien 
 
 the ;J(}th J?rotocol 
 cruizers, showed I 
 
 Llreat IJritain had 
 
 |id their tenders; 
 propertv, whicli 
 
 f(),OU() dollars, and 
 
 nORRESPONDENCE UKSPKCTING GENKVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 87 
 
 I' i-^rii, i>i). 47;m. 
 
 f'tliiit ill the hope of an amicable settlement, no e^.tiniate was made of 
 [lie indirect losses, without prejudice, however, to the v'\g\\t to indemni- 
 iciition on their account, in the event of no such settlement being nmde." 
 The "indire<!t losses'' were thus mentioned, not as clnimH, but aa 
 grievances, and were mentioned only :o be withdrawn from discussion. 
 ' .Mr. Fish says that it is unfortunate that the British Vu\*\\ (Jommis- 
 sioiiers did not remonstrate against the presentation of these claims, and 
 Mfnun the first to the last took no exception, and recorded no objection, 
 to the presentation made by the American Commissioners of the claims 
 \emrkalhj known as the 'Alabama claiujs,' which stand on the Protocol 
 IS a 'genus,' or class of claims comprehemling several si)ecies, and 
 iinioiig them enumerating speciti«ally the claims for indirect losses and 
 Injuries.'' 
 
 The answer to this is, that no mention is made in the Protocol of 
 'claiins generically known as the 'Alabama claims,'" or of any specific 
 ['UUiTieration of them, or of any such presentation at all. All that oc- 
 \:\m\'a\ was the above mentioned statement that the history of the "Ala- 
 bama" and other cruizers showed indirect injuries, followed by the waiver 
 )f the indemnification on their account, in the hope of an amicable 
 Kctt lenient. 
 
 The liritish High Commissioners thereupon took the natural course 
 Jot" not "entering upon a lengthened controversy" upon the barren ques- 
 jtlon of injuries for whicli they believed no claim was iiresented, and 
 Ithese i. direct losses ami injuries were never, as you are aware, again 
 Ihrought forward by the American High Commissioners, nor did they 
 jrc-appear until they were revived iu the Case preseuted by the United 
 jstates' Agent at Geneva, on the loth of December. 
 
 3Ir. Fish could not have been ignorant, from the report to which 1 
 lliave already referred, Avhich he had received from Mr. Johnson, and 
 ifioni the discussions in the public press, of the feeling in England with 
 Iregard to the exaggerated pretensions in Mr. Sumner's speech; and 
 Iwhen he intended to introduce as "Alabama claims," similar claims of 
 [equally onerous character, it is much to be regretted that he and his col- 
 leagues did not explain more clearly that by "an amicable settlement" 
 tliey iiuvmt one particular form of settlement, and that if the British 
 High Commissioners did not ac<iuiesce in it, they would bring forward 
 the constructive claims, for whicli an enormous indemity might be held 
 I due. 
 
 Instead of this, the American High Commissioners made a state- 
 
 hneiit which was accepted by the British High Commissioners and read 
 
 by Iler Majesty's (Jovernment, and, as far as they are aware, by the 
 
 IJiress and public of both countries, in a sense which, it is now stated, 
 
 the American High Commissioners never intended it to bear, but which, 
 
 until the interpretation appeared in the American Case, seemed the 
 
 I only sense iu which it coidd be read. 
 
 Iler Majesty's Government cannot accept the view which Mr. Fish 
 appears to eiitertain that a negotiation niust necessarilj^ be a matter of 
 bargain, in which a concession on one side is to be set oft" in each in- 
 stance against a (joncession on the other. The waiver of the construct- 
 ive claims Avas, as I stated to General Schenck, a requisite i)reliminax'y 
 to the negotiation, because Her Majesty's Government could not (as the 
 Ciovernment of the United States must have been aware then, and must 
 have since beconie convinced) have assented to any mode of settlement 
 which comprised these constructive claims, upon which the opinion of 
 this country had already been pronounced so strongly when they were 
 raised by Mr. Sumner. 
 
 '1j ' 
 
 u\ 
 
 I 
 
 ft I 
 
 n 
 
 I 
 
 5l 
 
 I. 
 
 m 
 
 I 
 
 WM 
 
I' iini-J ,^, 
 
 .1 t > 
 
 ^ v^-^ 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 l 
 
 r'ifl 
 
 ■4" 4 
 
 irV'ii K 
 
 ■. ' ', 
 
 ' •■•'!! 
 
 
 r .• > , 
 
 
 ; , '■* 
 
 ■ ♦', 
 
 I- •;■ ■■ .' '■. ■ J 
 
 ■I :'. t , 
 
 
 ■ h' '■ 
 
 1 \" 
 
 !•■','• -. - 
 
 ' ' \ 
 
 • ' li. ;i ' 
 
 '. "* 
 
 i»- .■ •■'.:!• 
 
 
 ■■'^^'■\ 
 
 
 ■-''■^."•■■■l. ■ 
 
 • ■,."'■■■ ;,;tri- • . 
 
 
 ■t-, :■■ 
 
 -., i;.':-' 
 
 {-■' 
 
 S8 
 
 COKUKSl'ONDENCE RESPi:CTLN(i (JKNKVA AKHITUATION. 
 
 Mr. Fisli .islvs, "How could it li;i|)i><'ii tliat so importiint si f'cjitmc dil 
 thi' lu'fi'otiiition as this iillc^icil waivci' is now n'pit'sciitcd to lie, was Iciil 
 t<» iii'ii'iviua', or to arj;uinoiit tVoiii iiitciitioiis iirAcr ixpn-sscd to tliel 
 Coiniiiissioiicrs or the (Joveriwiiciit of Hit' Uiiiti'd States until ufti-r tlii| 
 Treaty was si^^ncdi 
 
 "Tlio amplitude and the comitrclu'nsivr t'orcci of Iht; 1st Article (nrl 
 the yraiitinj;' clause) of the Treaty did not escapti the critical atlentioiil 
 of Her Majesty's Connnissioneis; but was any effort made to limit, drl 
 reduce the scojje of tin; submission, or to cx<Iude the indire(;t claims.' [ 
 
 The answer to this is that, in the lirst jdace, the Uritish Ili;;h Coiiil 
 missioners believed that after tho waiver they were a<;i'eed willi tlifj 
 United States Ilifili Commissioiu'is ui)ou the basis of the terms of tliJ 
 subnnssion; and, in the si^eond place, that they did limit the scope ofj 
 th»i submission. 
 
 The JJritisli lli<;li Commissioners, in the information which they havtl 
 furidslu'd to Her iMaJesty's Clovernment, both durinj;' the iiejiotiatidii 
 and since the presinitation of the American Case, have uniforiiih 
 inaintained tbat the claims for indirect losses were not included, noil 
 intended by them to be included, in the terms of the submission tol 
 arbitration, and you are aware that the DritisU Hiyh Commissioners [ 
 objected to the adoption of a form of reference to the Arbitrators,whitli 
 might from its va{>'uenes8 be taken to permit the introduction of suelil 
 claims, and that it was not until after lengthened discussion in tliej 
 Ccmmission that the terms of reference as they now stand intheTreatyl 
 were settled. 
 
 Her Majesty's Government cannot acknowledge that the nature ofl 
 tlie claims submitted was left to inference. On the contrary, the pre | 
 else claims referred to arbitration were closely deliued and limited. 
 
 Mr. Fish writes as though the reference to arbitration comprised "dif I 
 ferences" and "complaints," and "all claims;" but the British Higlil 
 Commissioners especially guarded against this. The claims submitted | 
 must be both "claims growing out of the acts committed by the afore 
 said vessels," i. e., "Alabama" and other cruizers, and claims " generically j 
 known as the 'Alabama claims.'" 
 
 The use of the words "acts committed" admittedly excludes tliej 
 questions of blockade-running and concession of belligerent rights from 
 the arbitration, and the specitication of the claims as " claims generically [ 
 known as the 'Alabama claims'" limits them to the class of directl 
 claims; which it has, 1 trust, been abundantly shown were alone known [ 
 at the time as "Alabama claims." 
 
 Mr. Fish attJiches some importance in support of his views to the M'ordsl 
 "growing out of" and "generically," but the first phrase is takeu 
 from Mr. Adams's letter of the 3 1st of October, 1803, when, in forwarding 
 "a number of memorials and other papers connected with the dei)ie' 
 dations of the vessel formerly called the " Oreto," and now the " Florida,"! 
 he observed that "the conclusion to which it would seem that botli 
 Governments arrive in regard to the disposition to be made of the 
 claims growing out of the depredations of the 'Alabama' and other 
 vessels issuing from British ports appears to render further discussion 
 of the merits of the question unnecessary." No mention whatever of 
 indirect or constructive claims had been made at this time, and the 
 claims to whicli Mr. Adams referred arc manifestly the clainis for actual | 
 damages. 
 
 W ?n the same expression is used again it uuist be taken to have] 
 the same meaning. 
 
 1 will not follow 31r. Fish into the etymologv of the word "generically."! 
 
liBITKATION. 
 
 CORKESI'ON'DKNCK UKSrECTINO OENKVA AlllUTRATION. 
 
 8i> 
 
 [)ortin«t it r«'iilm('ii!| 
 'iitt'd to Ik', was Iciil 
 V f-xpit'ssi'd to tlif| 
 atcs until after tin 
 
 the Ist Aiticle (dri 
 le critical attoiiti 
 I made to limit (irl 
 u! iiulii'cct claims; '[ 
 
 IJritish lli;;ii Com 
 If. ajiiccd with tiicl 
 of the, t(!rms of tlicf 
 
 limit the scope (i[| 
 
 on which they havil 
 iiy the iief^otiatidiil 
 \e, have uiiifonnh 
 ) not included, noil 
 ■ the submission to) 
 iyh Commissioners f 
 B ArbitratorSjWhittil 
 troductiou of suehl 
 I discussion in tliel 
 stand in tlie Treaty [ 
 
 that the nature ofl 
 J contrary, the pre [ 
 ed and limited, 
 [ion comprised "dill 
 ; the British HiftLl 
 o claims submittt'dl 
 lifted by the afore 
 aims "geuericallvl 
 
 edly excludes tliel 
 
 ;vrent rights from 
 
 claims generically 
 
 le class of direct 
 
 were alone known [ 
 
 views to the words I 
 phrase is taken 
 ien,iu for warding I 
 d with the dei)re- 
 ow the "Florida,"! 
 d seem that both 
 be Hiade of tlie 
 bama' and other 
 urther discussion I 
 tion whatever of| 
 iis time, and tliol 
 ? claims for actual 
 
 be taken to have | 
 
 )rd " generically." 
 
 • •(Jniericaily known as the 'Alabama claims'" seems t«: ' . the same a;s 
 |lli(' "(lass (»f claims known as the 'Alalian-a claims,"' I'le phrase used, in 
 Itlie Stiinley-lohnson ('onvention, and serves to distinguish this class of 
 jclaiiiis from every other class of (claims which the United States (iovei-n- 
 jiiii'iit might have to prefer. The ''Alabama claims'' have been desig 
 (iiiitedas a " (tiass of claims" to avoid tlu^ misapprehension, which at one 
 Itiiiie scenu'd to have occurred to Mr. Heward, tliat tlu^ words "Alabama 
 Iclaiiiis"' might be construed as meaning only claims on account of 
 liii juries sustained from tln'.one vessel "Alabama." The i)hrase itself goes 
 
 very far to deline itsown limited meaning; l\)r, w hile it is (piite intelligible 
 
 tiiat, ior i»n'vity's sake, the name of one vessel should stand for otlnu's 
 J()f a particidar class, of which it is the priiuMpal e\ani])le, it appears to 
 (he contrary to all reason that the name of such a particular ship should 
 Ihe used to describe claijns lor g«!neral national losses, such as those for 
 Itlie decline of the commercial marine of the Unitetl States and the pro- 
 llongation of tln^ war. 
 
 Mr. Fish, with r<'ference t(» the remark in his <lespatch of the 27tli 
 lof February, that the indirect claims are covered by one of the alterna- 
 Itivcs of the Treaty, states that the (lovernment of the United States 
 lare "of the opinion that they are covered by thealterinitive power given 
 Jto the Tribunal of Arbitration of awarding a sum in gross, in case it 
 jlinds that (h-eat Britain has failed to fultil any duty, or of remitting to 
 la Board of Assessors the deteraiinaiion of the validity of claims pre- 
 jsented to them, and the amounts to be paid." 
 
 The Ylth article of the Treaty, after stating the three rales, ])roceeds : 
 I" Her Britannic Majesty has commanded her High Commissioners and 
 Irienipotentiaries to declare that Her ^Majesty's Government cannot 
 lassent to the foregoing Kules as a statement of principles of interna- 
 Itional law which were in force <ft the time ichen the clniins mentioned In 
 lArf/iVc /arose; but that Her 31a jesty's Government .... agrees 
 jtliat, in deciding the questions between the two countries arising out of 
 \those claimn, the Arbitrators should assume," &c. 
 
 Article VII provides that "the said Tiibnunl shall first determine m 
 \to each vessel separatebj whether Great Britain has, by any act or omis- 
 Ision, lailed to fulfil any of the duties set forth in the three foregoing 
 JKules, or recognized by the principles of international law not iucon- 
 jsistent with such Kules, and shall eertify such fact as to each of the said 
 tvcsHcls. In case the Tribunal liml that Great Britain huH failed to fulfil 
 \ttny duty or duties as aforesaid, it may, if it think proper, ])roceed to 
 
 award a sum in gross to be paid by Great iJritain for all the claims 
 \ref erred to It." 
 
 All the claims must mean all the "claims mentioned in Article I." 
 Mr. Fish admits that the indirect losses are not covered by what he 
 jtcrms the other " alternative" of the Treaty, viz., the provision in Article 
 
 X, that "in case the Tribunal tinds that Great Britain has failed to ful- 
 
 till any duty or duties as aforesaid, and does not award a sum in gross, 
 
 the High Contracting Parties agree that a JJoard of Assessors shall be 
 [appointed to ascertain and determine what claims are valid, and what 
 
 iunount or amounts shall be paid by Great Britain to the United States 
 I on ac(;ount of the liability arising from such failure, as to each vessel, 
 
 acc(U'ding to the extent of such liability as decided by the Arbitrators." 
 
 Mr. W. JJeach Lawrence, the distinguished Anu'ri(!an publicist, in 
 
 la letter dated the L'Oth ultimo, and published in the Siuingfleld In- 
 
 I dependent, observes: — "As in each case determined against Great 
 
 Ihitain, the Board of Assessors are, by Article X, to ascertain ami 
 [determine the amount which shall be i)aid by Great Britain to the 
 
 i'.i 
 
 U 
 
 ■i4 
 
 t 
 
ill,?',-;' ■ 
 
 I- ' 
 
 
 , .- ^._i ■; .1'. 
 
 
 
 
 .'I 
 
 '•.»:J. ' -.'f 
 
 •■'■'; K;i 
 
 
 
 '• , . " * ' ■ ' 
 
 
 
 "1 ' 
 
 ■'■■'. -'; "'■.•^''^:' 
 
 
 .■*•■■ 
 
 
 >' ■•.,;t_r'-- 
 
 90 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 United Stsites on ficcount of the liability arising from sncli failure astol 
 each vessel, according to the extent of such liability as decided by tiiel 
 Arbitrators, there wonld seem to be no room for indirect damages.! 
 Besides the difficulty of deciding on a claim indeterminable in its naturej 
 there would be the further embarrassment of apportioning the amouiitl 
 of injury growing out of the acts of each vessel in the general acconntT 
 Is it possible that the Assessors are to decide what part of the pro! 
 longation of the war is to be assigned to each vessel ? I am aware tliatl 
 there is a provision that the Arbitrators may, after they have decidedl 
 as to each vessel separately, award a sum in gross for all the claimsl 
 referred to then?. I cannot, however, perceive liow that provision inl 
 any wise extends the scope of the power of the Tribunal." Her Majesty's^ 
 Government cannot pei'ceive it either. 
 
 By both Articles VII and X, the Arbitrators are to determine tliel 
 extent of the liability of Great Britain as to each vessel, i. e., as to eacli| 
 cruizer separately. Throughout, the claims are strictly connected witlil 
 the acts of the cruizers. Mr. Fish acknowledges that, if the claims arel 
 considered in detail, the indirect losses cannot be taken into accouutj 
 and yet, as he states, they have been " presented at Geneva, not aJ 
 claims for which a si)ecific demand was made, but as losses and injunesj 
 consequent upon the acts complained of, and necessarily to be takeul 
 into equitable consideration on a final settlement and adjudication of| 
 all the differences submitted to the Tribunal." 
 
 I have already pointed out that " claims" and not " differences " havel 
 been submitted ; and ]\Ir. Fish's contention would amount to this, that,! 
 in awar<ling damages for a s])ecific want of due diligence in regard to al 
 particular vessel, the Arbitrators should take into consideration al 
 variety of grievances not necessarily connected with that vessel, audi 
 which could not be made matters for a claim if examined in detail, andj 
 award a gross sum not proportioned to the Avant of dilig uce or to tliel 
 injury thereby occasioned, but swelled by the amount of all the injurie/ 
 and losses of which the United States may have complained in all tlie| 
 correspondeiu;e of which the history of the cruizers forms i)art. 
 
 That is to say, that the Arbitrators should give judgment in oiml 
 matter and iniiict a ])enalty for another matter. A principle so con] 
 trary to the ordinary i»ractice of jurisprudence could not have been pre 
 sumed by the British High Commissioners, or by Her Jlajesty's (Joverii I 
 nient, to have been intended to be introduced, unless the intention was! 
 explained to them ; but, from first to last, no mention of indirect lossos| 
 was made in connection with the payment of a gross sum. 
 
 If the American High Commissioners desired that the alteruativtl 
 of the award of a gross sum should cover the claims for indirect lossesj 
 why Avere they not more e\i)li('it '! and wliy did they not require sonifj 
 lu'ovision fo be made in the Treaty to explain this for the guidance (ii| 
 the Arbitrators ? 
 
 jNIr. Fish says that "the cliiims for indirect losses were ])i"esente(l tol 
 the JJritish Commissioners as soh'innly and iritk more dtjimteucss A 
 KpiTiJivaiioH than were presented by them to the American Commission [ 
 ers the claims for alleged injuries which the people of Canada were said 
 to have suffered from what was known as the Fenian raids." 
 
 Jlut the indirect losses weri^ never "]»resented" as "(;laims," and anj 
 «'ven now sai<l not to b<^ "presented as claims" for which a. specific di' 
 mand is made; while the l'\'nian raid "claims" were ])ro]»osed for coiil 
 sideration on the 4th of .Mai'ch; again "brought before" the llislij 
 Ciunmission on the iMJfh of Ajtril, when the JUitisli negotiators said tliatl 
 *'they were instructed to present these claims," and it was not untU tbel 
 
 •I" '\\ 
 
RBITRATION. 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 91 
 
 3m such failure as tol 
 ty as decided by thel 
 V indirect daiuages,! 
 ninable in its naturel 
 "tioning the aniountl 
 the general acconntl 
 :hat part of the praj 
 (1 '? I am aware tliiitl 
 • they have decidedj 
 IS for all the claimsl 
 iw that provision inl 
 xnal." Her Majesty's! 
 
 re to determine thel 
 essel, i. e., as to eachl 
 ictly connected witlil 
 lat, if the claims are| 
 taken into accouut; 
 I at Geneva, not aJ 
 IS losses and injuries j 
 ;essarily to be takeDl 
 and adjudication ofl 
 
 b " differences " havel 
 amount to this, thati 
 igence in regard to al 
 nto consideration il 
 |ith that vessel, audi 
 nineil in detail, audi 
 dilig nee or to thel 
 nt of all the injuriesl 
 omplained in all thej 
 forms part. 
 
 judgment in omi 
 
 S. principle so couf 
 
 not have been pre 
 
 ^Majesty's IJoveru I 
 
 the intention wisl 
 
 )n of indirect losse.<| 
 
 sum. 
 
 at the alternativii 
 for indirect losses, 
 v not r('(piire sonul 
 Tor the guidance oil 
 
 s were presented tol 
 )»ore di'JinitoH'ss oj 
 
 'lican (Commission 
 if OiUiada ■were saidl 
 II raids." 
 
 "(ilaims," and nrei 
 khich a> specilic (h' 
 ])r()iK)S('d for c()ii| 
 
 before" tlie Hijjli 
 [^gotiatorssaidtliutl 
 
 t was not until the| 
 
 ;s 
 
 s 
 
 3ril of May that they said that "they would not urge further that the 
 settlement of these claims should be included in the present Treaty, 
 \nd that they had the less diflBculty in doing so, as a portion of the 
 Claims were of a constructive and inferential character." 
 
 Tims while the American indirect losses were only nientioned once, 
 uid then as it were incidentally, the Fenian raid claims were repeatedly 
 uid formally presented, and when their withdrawal from the negotiation 
 ivas agreed to at its close, it was with a remark which could have had no 
 |ust hearing, had not it been believed that all constructive and conse- 
 jnential claims had been withdrawn and excluded on the American 
 side also. 
 
 jMr. Fish expresses doubts as to the points raised in my letter of the 
 2()th of IMarch, that the Washington Claims Commissioners have, and 
 the Arbitrators have not, power to decide upon the extent of their own 
 jurisdiction, and that no words similar to those conferring that power 
 pre to be found in the articles relating to the Geneva Arbitration. 
 
 It will be seen, on comparing the Treaty of Washington with the 
 
 lainis Convention between Great Britain and the United States of the 
 ^tli of Februarj', 1853, that the words which I had quoted from the 
 
 ;iVth Article of the former are identical with the words used in the 
 lllrd Article of the latter, under which the Claims Commissioners were 
 pini)0wered to give, aiul did undoubtedly give, decisions as to the ex- 
 toiit of their jurisdiction ; as, for instance, in the claims for Texas 
 :)ouds of James Holford's executors, and Philip Dawson, and for Florida 
 ^londs of Heneage W. Dering, and in other cases. — (See Senate Execu- 
 tive Documents, No. 103, 34tli Congress, 1st Session, pp. 03,64.) 
 
 The Articles engaging to consider the results of the proceedings of 
 Jthe Tribunal, and of the Claims Commission respectively, as final settle- 
 ments, Articles XI and XVII, are also adopted from the Convention of 
 1853, Article V ; and had it been desired to give the same powers of 
 (urisdiction to the Arbitrators as to the Commissioners, a clause similar 
 to that in the XlVtli Article would have been inserted to express it. 
 
 In the absence of such a clause the jurisdiction of the Arbitrators re- 
 ^tiains restricted to the particular claims " known as Alabama claims," 
 submitted to them in Article I. 
 
 ller Majesty's (ioveriiment cajuiot admit that a power, which, when 
 
 \t is designed to be given to the Chiints Commissioners in one part of 
 
 the Treaty is given in express words, can be inferentially assumed to 
 
 JO given in another part of the Treaty to the Arbitrators, by assigning 
 
 [i broad signification to the term "question " in the Ilnd Article. 
 
 The questions which the Arbitrators are to examine and decide are 
 |[)bviously all questions that may be laid before them by tlu^ res[)ective 
 liovernments, in preferring and refuting the particular claims on which 
 iieir judgment is re(puvsted, and the Article must be read in connection 
 hvithtlie succeeding Articles III, IV, and V, provi<ling how the (Jases, 
 roiinter-Cases, evidence, and arguments are to b(^ brought before them. 
 
 ^Ir. Fish cannot mean that the Arbitrators may decide " any (pies- 
 (ions" not coming within the terms of the refereiu;e to the Tribunal. If 
 that were to be the case, Her IMajesty's (Jovernment might bring foi*- 
 [ward as a set-otVagainst the "Alabama claims" the questions of the injury 
 lone to Ihitish trade by the blockade, or the Fenian raids, or jtossibly 
 itlier (piestions. In siiort, a scope would be given to tln^ Arbitration 
 t\vlii('h the United States Government could not have contemplated, and 
 [AvouM iirobably be unwilling to admit. 
 
 .Air. l-'isli states that " the United States caliidy submitted to the 
 Jonimission the decision of its jurisdiction " over the Cotton Loan claims j 
 
 n 
 
f:Hmi 
 
 ■'^i. •'.';. Ml" 
 
 
 ■.Kj^^hv 
 
 ' ■; '»' ■■„■ X 
 
 !•■',• , .<:' r .4 
 
 ■"■■>•'.■-,'. "•'H,' 
 
 
 
 -•*•! .■ ■ ■ i 
 
 92 
 
 CORRKSPONDEN'CE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 but this statement does not appear to be, at all borne out by the " Argii,| 
 ment for the United States on motion to dismiss" these claims. 
 
 The United States a^ent moved for the dismissal of the claim, asi 
 not beiiiff included under the Treaty, and ])lainly notified that the) 
 United States refused to permit it to be considered as included ; his ar [ 
 gument being that there was a constitutional provision which prevented) 
 the payment of tjucli claims, that this was known to the American Comf 
 missioners when negotiating tlie Treaty, to the American Government | 
 when acceptinj; it, and to the Senate wiien ratifying it, and that it was 
 impossible for tlic United States to pay or to consider the (]uestion ot| 
 paying the claims. 
 
 "It must be borne in mind," he said, " that at the time of this eorl 
 respondence, as well as at the time of the conclusion and ratification ofj 
 the Treaty, the Constitution of the United States contained an express 
 l)rohibition of the assumption or payment of these debts by the United I 
 States or by any State. That every officer of the United States, execu- j 
 tive, legislative, and judicial, was tluis bound by the supreme lawof thp| 
 land and by his oath of office to treat as utterly null any pi'ovision ofj 
 any Treaty o? statute in contravention of that constitutional prohibi] 
 tion, under penalty of impeachment or its equivalent." 
 
 The agent concluded by asking "the dismission of the claim on tlie| 
 ground specified in his motion." 
 
 In short, he i)ositively declared that no award unfavourable to tliej 
 United States would, or could, have been accepted and ])aid. 
 
 There are several other statements made by Mr. Fish which are I 
 open to reply, but I have considered it sufficient, for the purposes of this I 
 despatch, toconfine my comments to those which bear mere immediately [ 
 on the negotiation an«l interpretation of the Treaty. 
 I am, &e., 
 
 GRANVILLE. 
 
 No. 37. 
 
 General i<ehenclc to Mr. Fiah. 
 rExtriict.l 
 
 No. 22,>.J 
 
 Legation of the United States, 
 
 London, Mmj 14, 1S72. (Ileceivcd May 27.) 
 
 Sir : Since my No. 210 on the 2d instant, our correspondence by tele^ 
 graph has been so constant and full, that i nuist refer to that mainly j 
 for a connected history of what has transjjircd. 
 
 It would be vain to attempt to give anything like a detailed .account of| 
 what passed or was said in the almost daily interviews and conversations, 
 and sometimes much oftener than daily, and often lasting ^or honi!* 
 at a time, which took place between Lord Granville and me. 1 sought,! 
 as my telegrams will show, to keep you continually, regularly, and clear T 
 ly int'ornu'd as to results, and witli my last desi>atch (No. 221) I fiii' 
 wished you coi)ies of all the notes and written nuitter which came to | 
 me with the new Treaty article proposed by this Government. 
 
 I'erhaps, however, 1 (.'unnot better report or explain to you tlie man- 
 
ARBITRATION. 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 93 
 
 leoiit by the " Argii.| 
 these claims. 
 5sal of tlie claim, asl 
 ly iiotiflod that the| 
 as inclmkd ; his ar 
 ^ioii which pre vol I tod I 
 ) the American Comj 
 nericaii Governmout) 
 j;' it, and that it was! 
 sider the qnestiou of) 
 
 he time of this corl 
 >n and ratification ofj 
 contained an express! 
 debts by the United I 
 Jnited States, execuj 
 e supreme law of thpl 
 idl any provision of| 
 ustitntional prohibi- 
 snt." 
 of the claim on tliel 
 
 nn favourable to tliel 
 
 and ])aid. 
 Mr. Fish which are I 
 V the purposes of this [ 
 ear mo re immediately 
 
 GRANVILLE. 
 
 TES, 
 
 [leceived May 27.) 
 jspoiulenco by tele^ 
 L'fer to that mainly] 
 
 I detailed account of I 
 and conversations,! 
 Ii lasti'ig <')r honrs| 
 land me. 1 sou<«lit, 
 |e]iiularly. and clear 
 Ich (No." liL'l) I till- 
 Iter which came to] 
 rernment. 
 In to yon tlu; iiinii' 
 
 nor and spirit with which I sought to present and urge the views of our 
 Llovernment in this contention about the i)resentation of the claims for 
 indirect danniges, than by forwarding to you the annexed copy of iv 
 paper which 1 read to Lord Granville on the morning of the lOth instant, 
 IJy referring to my several telegrams of the 9th, you will observe that 
 |at tiie end of that day, it seemed as if all hoi»o of agreement between 
 the two Governments must be given np. Her Majesty's Government 
 had expressed their decision against the suggestion of a new article as 
 |a mode of settlement, and I had informed them that no note could be ac- 
 Iccpted by the President aiul assented to, which did not embody thecondi- 
 Itions exi)ressed in your telegram of the 27th of April. 
 
 But early next morning came the message from Lord Granville ask- 
 luig me to telegraph you immediately that a Cabinet would be held 
 jtbut day, and that he wished me to meet him afterwards. * * 
 
 I (lid not wait for the conclusion of the Cabinet meeting, but sought 
 |]jord Granville almost immediately at the Foreign Office. I had nnide 
 lup my mind to present once more to His Lordship, as briefiy and yet as 
 Iclearly as I could, a sun\mary statement of the views of my Government, 
 land tiie position, as I understood it, of the question between us. I had 
 Ito this end very hastily prepared myself by reducing what I had to say 
 Ito him to writing, in order that there might be no misunderstanding 
 I afterwards of the points advanced, or of my language. This was the 
 l»aper of which I send you a copy. Lord Granville came out of 
 Cabinet to meet me. I read it to him, and placed as much of it as was 
 J copied in his hands. I afterwards furnished him a full cop3\ He replied 
 at once verbally by informing me that Her Majesty's Government 
 would ])robably conclude to take the initiative and propose a treaty 
 jartiole, in which case the proposal, in such form as it might be a^'reed to 
 lotrer it, would be communii^ated to me after the Cabinet had decided ; and 
 laiterwards, on that day, the proposed article was delivered to me. If 
 niy summing up that morning did not contribute towards bringing this 
 conclusion to the correspondence and discussion, at least it did not pre- 
 vent this Government from concurring in what I regarded as the only 
 |ert'ective form of adjustment which appeared to remain to us. 
 
 It is not forme to comment now on the merits of this plan of adjust- 
 |nient which has been placed before the Senate for consideratioti. Be- 
 torc this despatch can reach you, that body will probably" have advised 
 Itlie President to accede to it, or will have refused its assent. I sincerely 
 trust that the f(n"mer will be the decision arrived at. This I venture 
 to say, not from a desire nuM'ely to ado])t what seems to be perhaps 
 the only remaining chance of preserving a treaty so important to the 
 nicace and interests, of the two countries, but because 1 think the [)riin'ii>h' 
 jileclared in this article for future ob.jorvance between the two nations is 
 one which if settled and maintained mast be of im\stiniable advantage 
 I to the United States. With our chances of being generally neutral when 
 [tlreat Britain and other Euroi)eau States are ln'Uigerent, the benelits of 
 tliernleare to I'c i)rincipally and oftcnest ours. Our continental position, 
 our exteiuled seaco»st, our numerous ports, the (juter[>rising charact(.'r 
 of our citizens, and Mie ditliculty of restraining their si)irit of adven- 
 ture, surely make the rule that would thus be establishe(l more valiinl))*' 
 ;iinl more favoiable to the United States tliau to perhai" ■ iH'.V otiier 
 country. 
 
 All this we secure in exchaugo lor Ih-,' sui'render of ('(M'tain claims 
 wliich we were I iressing before the Arbitrators at (jcneva, not with a 
 view to pecuniary compensation, but only because they were a ]iortion 
 of the grounds of disagree neut between us and (Jreat Britain, upon 
 
 M 
 
 Mi 
 
 II 
 
 Ij 
 
 m 
 
 i 
 
 m 
 
 
 1 
 
 :^ 
 
 m 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 Is 
 
 J 
 
 M 
 
 I'll 
 
 Ii 
 
 1 
 
\ .v; 
 iJ V.'o " 
 
 
 
 '■ -i ■ 
 
 '.•'1; ■ ■•' .:' • ■ 
 
 ■1'^; 
 
 ■ ■ ■ if -i >' 
 
 : :<-. 
 
 i> '».r;v;.v;;.,,. 
 
 
 ■ ■.f ,^ ■'■ 
 
 
 
 
 I. 
 
 '* -^--. 
 
 ■*::■» 
 
 04: 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 whicli tliat Tribunal was empowered, for the sake of perfect peace, tol 
 
 inako an award, while we ourselves did not hesitate to admit that itl 
 
 must be to our gain to have the decision against us. * • ♦I 
 
 J have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 KOBT. C. S(;ilENCK. 
 Uon. Hamilton Fish,. 
 
 i^ecretnry of >S7rt/( , Washington^ D. C. 
 
 [Inclosure in No. ^7.] 
 
 Sunvnnnj of vicim of the United States on the indireet claims rend by (Jen-\ 
 eral SchencTc to Earl Granville on May 10, 1872. 
 
 General Sehenck, in an interview with Lord Granville, summed upi 
 what he regarded as the present position of the question between thel 
 two Governments in the following remarks, which he had reduced to| 
 writing to prevent misunderstanding of his views or language : 
 
 When we parted, after our long conversation yesterday, j'our lastl 
 words to me were these : " I carefully avoid anything that may btl 
 construed into menace, but in consequence of the views and inforraationl 
 you have presented to me yesterday and today I take an unfavorable! 
 view of the chances of settlement." Those words I felt it my duty to| 
 telegraph last night, as. I told you I would, to my Government, and 
 added to them, "I told Lord Granville that 1 was of the same mind." 
 
 It was painful to me beyond expression to have to do this — a gravel 
 thing to iiave to believe that the result of all the labor and care whidij 
 led to the making of the Treaty of Washington — the end of all the hopes! 
 which it had inspired for the future of our two countries, and for the! 
 cause of civilization and the nations — was to be but failure, disappoint [ 
 ment, and estrangement, instead of success, close and lasting friendshiiJ 
 and peace. I have not slept well on that conclusion to our interview. 
 
 If this be the end, then I am well aware that each Governmeiitj 
 will, in one form or another, present its exi)lanation to the world, alll 
 the States and peoples of which, it is no exaggeration to say, are waitiiigl 
 the issue of our attempts to come to a good understanding ; and eaclil 
 party will naturally seek to justify itself and to throw the blame on tliel 
 other. 
 
 This must be my excuse, at the risk of too much repetition, for one I 
 more effort, whicli must now, in this pressure of time, be hastily and 
 imperfectly made, to present the views and position of my Govern- 1 
 ment in relation to the points on which we so unfortunately (litter. 
 
 The difflculty has its root entirely in the opposing interpretations given | 
 to the Treaty by the two Governments. 
 
 The United States understand that it was the intention of that in 
 strument to provide a mode for the settlement, wiping away, and blot 
 ting out forever of all claims against Great IJritain growing out of thel 
 acts of the Alabama and other such cruisers ; and they claim therefore to 
 put forward, and have put forward, in their Case before the Arbitrators, 
 the whole of their demands for damages, direct and indirect. This they I 
 insist they may rightfully do ; and that they are entitled to ask and ex- 
 pect of tiie Arbitrators a decision as to each class of claims, as to its I 
 admissibility before the Tribunal for consideration in the lirst instance. | 
 and if .adjudged admissible, then such award as that High International 
 Court constituted by the Treaty may think it just within the scoi)eot| 
 their powers to make. But the United States have not desired or 
 expected any award of compensation from Great Britain for the indi- 
 rect damages. They have even been free to admit in advance that it 
 Mould be better for their future advantage and tlie interest of nations! 
 
 
BITRATION. 
 
 f i)erfect pi^aco, tol 
 
 a to admit that itl 
 
 # » t| 
 
 ant, 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 95 
 
 :laims rend by (Jen-\ 
 ', 1872. 
 
 uville, summed upl 
 
 jstioii between the! 
 
 he had reduced to| 
 
 language : 
 
 jsterday, jour last I 
 
 thing that may bel 
 
 ws and information j 
 
 ke an unfavorable! 
 
 felt it my duty tol 
 
 jrovernment, andl] 
 
 the same mind." 
 
 do this — a gravel 
 
 or and care whiclil 
 
 ;nd of all the hopes j 
 
 itries, and for tliej 
 
 failure, disappointj 
 
 lasting friendship, [ 
 
 to our interview. 
 
 each Governmeiitl 
 
 to the Avorld, all! 
 
 tosay, arewaitingj 
 
 nding ; and each I 
 
 the blame on the 
 
 [epetition, for one I 
 it>, be hastily aiidj 
 »u of my Govern- 1 
 iiately (liffer. 
 ^rpretationsgiveiil 
 
 tention of that in 
 
 K away, and blot [ 
 
 lowing out of the! 
 
 ;laim theretbreto 
 
 the Arbitrators, I 
 lirect. This the.v 
 led to ask and oxj 
 
 claims, as to it^| 
 Ihe first instance. 
 ]gh Internationiil 
 
 liin the scope otl 
 not desired oij 
 lain for the indi- 
 
 advance that it I 
 
 terest of nations 
 
 ienerally that the Judgment of the Arbitrators should be adverse to 
 fhat class of claims. VVhat they contend for is the right under the 
 Treaty to submit them for consideration, as a known part of their 
 jeinaiids against Great Britain; and that it is important to both coun- 
 tries and in the interest of peace and good feeling that every question 
 [u regard to such claims should be solemnly considered and passed upon, 
 ^0 that they may disappear forever. 
 
 Great Britain maiutain.s that it is not within the meaning and inten- 
 [ion of the Treaty that such claims should be placed before tlie Tribunal, 
 )r that they come within the province of the Arbitrators to consider and 
 iceide upon. 
 
 The long argumentative discussion of this i)oint has ended unfortu- 
 lately in neither party being able to convince the other of the sound- 
 less of its interpretation. 
 
 Each is bound to admit good faith and fair intention in the other. 
 
 Hoth nations desire mutual and cordial friendship. 
 
 Both are earnestly and sincerely desirous to maintain the Treaty. 
 
 Some other way out of the difficulty, therefore, must be found if these 
 jbjects are to be attained. 
 
 Anticipating this irreconcilable disagreement on the point of inter- 
 jietation, various expedients were suggested as i)robable means for 
 escape from the dilemma, even before the conclusion of the discussion 
 liad hecn reached ; but none of these suggestions were adopted or acted 
 911, and it is now unnecessary to revive or refer to them. 
 
 At the last, in consequence of a conversation between himself and 
 ^he British Minister at Washington, Mr. Fish was led to believe that 
 
 ler ]\Iajesty's Government might make a proposal to the effect that they 
 [would >;ngage that in the future, should Great Britain be a belligerent 
 ind the United States neutral, and should there be any. failure on the 
 lart of the United States to observe their neutral obligations, Great 
 Britain will make or advance no claims against the United States by 
 reason or on account of any indirect, remote, or consequential results of 
 Buch failure, and that, in consideration of such stipulation, the United 
 states shall not press for a pecuniary award of damages before the 
 peueva Tribunal on account of the claims, respecting which Great Brit- 
 lin hr , expressed the opinion that they are not included in the submis- 
 sion, V iz : the transfer of the American shipping, increased insurance, 
 uul tlie prolongation of the war. If such a proposal shouhl be made by 
 flic British Government they were informed that the Preside ' would 
 issent to it. But it was to be understood that there was no withdrawal 
 rf any part of the Case of the United States, but an agreement not to 
 lloiiiaiid (lamage;:5 on account of those i)articular claims, leaving the 
 Cribiuial to make such expression of opinion as it might think proper 
 hn tliat question. A comnnuiication to this effect was made to the Brit- 
 ish (Jovcriiment, and a form of a note was given me containing in some 
 Sort a proposal of this kind to be submitted to my (Jovernment, but it was 
 IToiuul to be in so many essential jtaniculars different from the sugges- 
 tion which was understood to have been made by Sir Edward Thornton, 
 ukI which had commended itself to Mr. Fish, that it was not assented 
 to by the President, a modilication of this note was subsequently made, 
 |iuul it was submitted in an amended form. 
 
 The moditied note omitted or changed s()ni(> portion of wi at was 
 |i)bjectionable in the lirst proimsal, but was still so far short of what is 
 consistent with the views and position of the United States that it 
 [could not be accepted. 
 
 The grounds of objection to the proposal as framed and presented by 
 this note 1 will hereafter state. 
 
'V+ 
 
 ■ ■•■' ' '■ 
 
 rrrp'.-- 
 
 
 
 
 COKRESPONDLVCE RESPECTINQ GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 TIk'ic v,;».^ then a SMp.^estion luaileto IIiu' Majesty's Govern inoii I tliii 
 tlioir i)roj)osiil mi^^lit b;; submitted in the shape of a new article to 
 a(l(k«l to the Treaty of \V'«sliiii<rton. This woiihl ctVeetually bin 1 IxjtJ 
 nations lor the future to the observance of the rule wliicsh they niighj 
 ajjree on, and wouhl reniove, if i)r<)perly and carefully fianied, all ohjcc 
 tions made to an interchange of notes as a secure and ettective iiioiUm 
 reacliing the object in view. 
 
 Hut Her ^rajesty'sdovernnient, it is iniderstood, alfogether decliiio,(J 
 have-thus far declined, to open any negotiation to detint* by treaty tliil 
 extent or limit of the r oonsibility of a i.eutral to a belligerent for iiidij 
 reet or eonse(]uential « ages. T deeply regret this, and my (lovornj 
 ment regrets it; ami 1 will proceed to explain i)resently wherein it i| 
 tl'.ought a treaty stipulatio); !••»» an advantage over any other form 
 agreement, and onglit to be desired by both i)arties. 
 
 JJut to return to the (lifhculty — nay, the impossibility — of adjusting tbil 
 disagreement by an interchange of notes, if we must adoj)t the foriJ 
 and substance of the proposal oll'ered in that shape by the British Gov] 
 eiament. In the first place, that proposal, ns Great Britain appears tj 
 be only willing to present it, either dire(!tly stipulates for, or implies,) 
 withdrawal or abandonment on the part of the United States of tliJ 
 indirect claims ; that is, to regard and treat theni as eliminated i'romtliJ 
 <'.ase presented to the Arbitrators, and not to be in any way considerel 
 or adjudged as the subject of award by the Tribunal. The Jiritish Gov! 
 ernment holds — notwithstanding th*'. principle that every tribunal niiisT 
 necessarily, by its very cieation, possess an inherent right and power ti 
 de'iido questions relating to its own jurisdiction, considering {nevitabljj 
 ant' at the very thiashold whether a matter brought before it is or is iioj 
 one tf which it can take cognizance — the British Government holds thai 
 the Arbitrators cannot look at the indirect claims even for tlie i)urposJ 
 of determining that they are iiuidmissible. This is not overstsiting tlifi 
 position, extravagant as it may seem, when they maintain that umW 
 the Treaty the United States had no right to put such claims forward ii 
 their Case. But the United States not only maintains that the moil 
 tioning and putting forward of these claims is rightful, with a view tJ 
 obtaining a judgment as to their admissibility, but also hold that it Viii 
 the intent and meaning of the Treaty that they should be submitted foj 
 whatever they may be worth, even if this has to be done only with \ 
 view to get rid of them as a cause of ditl'erence and complaint betwwij 
 the two countries. 
 
 Now, the I*resident of the United States, acting through his agent a| 
 Geneva, can i)ut forward, withhold, (u* withdraw such portion of tli| 
 claims as he may think ])roper. That is not denied. But if any of X\m 
 claims are contemi)lated and intended by the Treaty itself for suhiiiij| 
 iSion, such withholding or withdrawing of them by the President ale 
 is not an extinguishment of them. The power of the 1 resident of tlil 
 United States is limited by the Constitution. He cannot of hiit.siij 
 make a treaty; nor can he alter, abridge, or dei)art irom the spirit o| 
 intention of a treaty. To do that recjuires the assent, advice, and coi 
 currenee of the Senate. If the Treaty submits tliese claims, as he is (i| 
 opinion it clearly does, to the consi(l(>rati(»n of the Tribunal, then " 
 putting them into the Case, or his taking them out of the Case, does noi 
 dispose of them. If they are withdra'.vn by him, they are only liiil 
 away, preserved perhaps to be a future ])lague, unsettled; kept as; 
 po>ssible source of irritation and complaint. They can be extinguish(il 
 only by some judgment of the i)reseribed Tribunal api)()inted for tlicij 
 consideration, or by being given up through the action of the wliolj 
 
ARBITRATION. 
 
 CORHKSPONDENCl'] RE.SPP:CTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 97 
 
 y'sGovcriimeul tlij 
 a now sii'ticle to b] 
 otlectuiilly bin 1 hotj 
 le whicJi they niiglij 
 lly IVhukmI, all ol^jet 
 uul ett'cctivo nio(l(.i( 
 
 nlfo{;othor (looliiie,(ii 
 define by treaty tli 
 I belligerent Tor iiiilij 
 liis, and my Govornl 
 lisently wherein it iJ 
 er any other form o| 
 
 ity — of adjnstinstbJ 
 uust adoj)t tlie forij 
 ) by the liritish Gov] 
 lit Britain appears tJ 
 Ltos for, or implies,/ 
 Jnited States of tliJ 
 :i eliminated fromtlij 
 1 any wav considerel 
 il. The British Gov! 
 - every tribunal iiiusif 
 it right and power t 
 )nsiderinf;: inevitablj| 
 t before it is or is iioi 
 )vernment holds thai 
 even for tljo purposi 
 not overstating t\m 
 maintain that uiidtif 
 ch claims forward ij 
 tains that the inoiil 
 tful, with a view il 
 ilso hold that it wi 
 lid be siibnxitted foi 
 »e done only with 
 complaint betwod 
 
 hrough his agent iij 
 ■»nch itortion of tli| 
 liut if any of tlus 
 I y itself for subniiJ 
 the President iiloiil 
 le 1 resident of till 
 cannot of hiiiisii 
 t from the sjarit oi 
 lit, advice, and cuiij 
 clnims, as he is 
 Tribunal, then liij 
 the Case, does mil 
 they are oidy lai| 
 settled ; kept ;is ; 
 an be extinguishpil| 
 ippointed for thcii 
 iction of the wliolil 
 
 i.;ity-!iiaking power exenrising its constitutional fuiu-tions in behalf of 
 Ic nation. 
 
 Tims you should (dearly see the reason why the President may be 
 
 It' to agrees not to press for a money-award on claims which he 
 [yards as now before the Tribumd, but to leave them to be dlsjmsed 
 
 Or comnuMited on by the Arl)itrators, while he refuses to withdi-aw 
 [iciii as not being proi)erly a sid)ject for their (consideration. 
 ITImmc is objection, too, to the substance of the proposal nmde in the 
 jritisii note. The engagement, to be of value in the future, should 
 I' i(M'i|>ro('al. The note i)rofesses to make it so; but how ? The offer 
 Ilcr .Alajesty's doveinment is to agree that the view whi(rh they- 
 
 ivc iieretofore ])resented of snch indirect claims shall be their prin 
 Iplc of future a(!tion and comluct; and that at any time when the 
 [iiitcd States may be a neutral, and Great Britain a belligerent, slu; will 
 lot advance any claims in(!onsistent with that princi[>le. 
 
 This i>< vague; and yet it is limited and narrow. 
 
 It is a vague undertaking to promise generally to adhere to a '' view'- 
 
 a " principle," when there must be a search to ascertain what that 
 lew is, or i)rinciple is; and it is a narrow uiulertaking which confines 
 |self to an abnegation of the right to pursiu^ certain specific classes 
 
 uaiuages, when the particular kinds of injury out of which those 
 [images may arise are only to be deternuned by comparison. There 
 iionld be general words of description, and a clear enunciation of 
 liiHciple, in any rule that is to serve as a law of action, instead of a 
 
 I'orenc e only to special cases that have before o(!curred ; because no 
 \{o cases can ever be exactly sinular. A rule depending for its appli- 
 ition only on tests of comparison w<ndd br(;ed disputes inst(nid of 
 ?moving them. 
 
 A tr<»aty stipulation might be made free of all these objections. 
 
 lu the first place there (lould be no question about its mutually bind- 
 jg for(!e; and in the next place, being the Joint concurrent declaration 
 I" the two parties to it, reduced to a single form of expression, it would 
 five a i)recision not likely to be found in a co'.';ation or comparison of 
 le several notes embraced in a dii)lomatic correspoiulence. 
 
 Great Britain has not merely denied the right of the Unit(Hl States 
 
 pat forward the indirect claims be(!ause she denies that the Treaty 
 
 limits of any construction winch will authorize their being considered 
 
 ly tlie Tribunal. She has also taken the alternative view, that if, by 
 
 ?ason of any ambiguity in the Treaty, or any i)ossible interi)retation 
 
 it, such claims could be brought forward by the United States, it is 
 lot to be sui)p()sed for a nu)ment that she ever intemled to agree to sub- 
 lit to arbitration demands upon her of such character and nature that 
 [ley might be dangerous to the very existence of any nation, and make 
 |ie condition of a neutral possibly worse than that of a belligerent. 
 
 To insist that the Treaty is so clear in its terms as in no sense to 
 kliiiit of the American interiiretation, is only going back to and beg- 
 liiig the (piestion which l:as been fruitlessly discussed. But if it be so 
 loar in the meaning, then Great JU-itain, by snch a treaty stipulation, 
 V'ldiiig nothing, giving no ccmsideration, wmdd secure immunity for 
 lie future against a class of claims which she asserts to be always dau- 
 loi'oiis and ini[>roper to be made. 
 
 Bat, on the other hand, if the Treaty does admit of the American 
 
 ltcr[»retation, (.Jreat Britain would obtain that immunity for the future 
 
 |ot only without cost or sacrifice, but with the additional advantage of 
 
 Kcapiitg fioai an obligation in which, she avers, in that case, she was 
 
 |ii\\ittingly drawn, and which she regards as so dangerous that, if it 
 
 7 G A 
 
 M 
 
 I 
 
 
 nil 
 
 il 
 I 
 
,''1 ... ■ 
 
 •■T'- 
 
 ■■ 'J- '.■; ;..* 
 
 im 
 
 N' 
 
 
 r •>■ 
 
 
 t « 
 
 ; ' f 
 
 .3ft 
 
 
 ■ ' ' 
 
 " 
 
 ■ 'U 
 
 ,f. ■*; 
 
 * 
 
 i' •I 
 
 C0RRKSP0M)1:N'CE kksphcting gexkva akfjitration. 
 
 (Iocs exist, she would ruHior ii'pmliiite a solmiii' treiity lliaii abide [ 
 \vlsat sill' lias done. 
 
 What, tlii'U, is it that (iivat l>vitaiii >vill inaiii if a lunv article im'scii! 
 ing a riilo a^naiiist claims for i':.lirc( t daiua<;cs be added to the Treahl 
 She will have the Treaty '■. ith all its bi ;H'lits to her, as it now stiimil 
 remain intact. Slie will be relieved from tiu; respimsibility on thcmj 
 hand of answerin;^ to any award a;;'aiiist her which may be mado I 
 the Arbitrators in case the Amoriiran interpretation is snstaine 1, iiiidi 
 the other from tiie deplorable alternative of abro^atini;' her ownsolcii 
 act. And she will obtain formal and cei tain security for the future tii 
 she is never t(» be hehl toanswe. !";»r damages (»f akind which sheat^s,i 
 are so daniicrous and uncertain that they ininht to be resisted. 
 
 fs she ]n'cpiired to hold back from an invitation to offer or concur 
 what must biinj^' such results .' 
 
 AVhat will be the j;ain to the Uiuted States.' The settlement of 
 safe rule for the future, and the saving of the advantaf;es to their 
 terests, which are to be found In the friendly adJustnuMit which \ 
 thought to have b(!eu anule of all the questions likely to disturb 
 relations of the two countries, at the cost of j-ivinp,' up that portioiu 
 their demands for past injuries which they have been pressing, not wit 
 a view to obtainin{>- pecuniary compensation, but only in the assertioi 
 of their right to have such an award Iro'n the Tribunal at Geneva; 
 will nnike the Treaty of Washington what it was really intiMided tol 
 a means for wiping away forever from between these kindred natioi| 
 all iliflerences and comi)laiids as well as all claims. 
 
 
 
 
 W-' 
 
 
 'i 
 
 Xo. .18. 
 General Schencl- to Mr. 
 
 Fish. 
 
 No. 2oO.| ' Legation of the United States, 
 
 "■ Londou, May 25, 1H72. (Received June 5.) 
 
 SiK : I forward herewith copies of r correspondence which has taki 
 ]>lace between Lord (Jrauville and Diyself in regard to the propostf 
 identic notes to be communicated to the Arbitrators at Cleneva, in ('ii*| 
 of the new Treaty article being ado[>ted, together with a copy of II] 
 Lordship's original draught of suid identic notes sent to me in his lettciii 
 the !.'Oth instant. 
 
 I have the hoiior to be. .)ir, y(>ur obedient servant, 
 
 (In the absence of General Schenck,) 
 
 r,KN,j a:\mn :moiiax, 
 
 [Iiiclosiiro 1 in Xo. H^.] 
 7w(/V (Inawillc to General Seheneh. 
 
 roREifiN OrncE, Mail 20, 187:'. I 
 SiK : V\'e agree that it niigiit sr.ve tinu>, in case of the Treaty boinl 
 adopted, if I were to prepare a form of notes I'rom Her Majesty's im 
 ernment and the (iovernnient of the United States, cominunicatin.:.;' t!i 
 Treaty to the Tribunal oi" Arbitration at (.icneva. | 
 
 I therefore send you the draught wliieli I have pi'e|» irod. 
 1 have the honor to be, with the highest consideiuti'in, sir, your iinH 
 obedient, humble servant, 
 
 GiiAN villi:, 
 
 (h'A'i:u.vr, Si'iik:>('!\", dr., d-c, dr. 
 
AlilUTRATlON. 
 
 CORKHSI'ONDHNCE RKSPKCTIN'O GKNKVA AftHI TRATIOX. 
 
 f)9 
 
 riviit.v than abiilc 
 
 [Iii(!losiirt! 'i ill \(). :!>^. I 
 
 ,, / J>mii;/lif of Identic Note to the Avhllrdtorn. . ■ .^ << ^i 
 
 iTIic mi(1('isijii)i'(l, Affcnf of ITer Briltiimie Mnjesf!/, {Af/eiit of the United 
 \hIch) is iiistriicttMl by //('/• Majrslifs (Utecnuuent {the (iorernnient of the 
 
 \tiitvit States) 1() tninsiiiit to the accoiiiiJim.viiijjf Dcclaviitory (Jon- 
 
 jiilioii, ('(>iu'!ti(l«'<l on bet\vo(>ii llor l>iitaimi(! .Alajosty and the 
 
 liih'd States ofAmorica, I)y wiiicli it is providcMl tiiat, in consideration 
 
 tlie a^ieeinent tlicrein set foi'tli, the, President of tlie Fnited Stat(^s 
 
 I! make iio (.'hiiiii on tlie ])art <»f the Unitetl .States in resix'ct of tin? 
 direct losses stated in tlie ease presente<l on tlie part of the (Jovern- 
 
 'iit of the United States to the. Tribunal of Arbitration on tlio lath of 
 I'ceiiihiM', vi/: " Tlie loss in the transfer of the Aiiioricaii comniei'cial 
 jiiriiic ti) the liritish ila.s;', tlu^ enhanced payments of insurance, and 
 [e addition of a larj^e sum of the cost of tlie war and the suiypression 
 
 the rebellion.'' 
 Ilii accordance with the jmnisions of this CouveJition, the undersigned 
 [s the honor, on the part of the Crovernment which lie reim^sents, to 
 kliiest that no claims for indirect losses as aforesaid may be entertained 
 
 the Tribunal. 
 
 n 
 
 [ Inelosuro 3 in No. 3M.J 
 
 General SeheneJc to Lord Granville. 
 
 TouQUAY, May 22, 1872. 
 
 j.Mv Lowi) : Your note of the 20th, covering a dranght of a form of note 
 j^Si'ested for communicating the new Treaty article, if adopted, to the 
 ihitrators, was delivered to .Mr. Morau hist evening, and reached me 
 
 ere this morning. 
 
 Il shall iiasten to submit it by telegraidi to Mr. Fish, so that, if the 
 
 kcasion comes, no time may be lost in having it ready as agreed on. 
 
 11 have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, Your Lordship's 
 
 lost obedient servant, 
 
 JIOr.EUT C. SCllRNCK. 
 
 GFvA^' villi:. 
 
 Xo. 30. 
 Mr. Fish to General iSchenelc. 
 
 [T.'l.'griiiii.] 
 
 ])Ki'Ai{'rAij:M' OF State, 
 WashiniJton, May 2(», 1872. (Sent at 2.;.'.0 a. m.) 
 iTiie IMeNidciit having requested an exj)ression by the Senate of their 
 |s|i()sition in regard to advising and consenting to the formal adoption 
 
 tlie article pro])osed by the Uritish (ioverniHe'.it, as communicated in 
 \uv telein'iim of May lOth, that body has amended the ])i'()i)0sed 
 (tide and agrees to advise and consent to its adoption in the following 
 
 I'lMs : 
 
 Jnowu lo and including tlie words (Ireat I'liiain, the same as in tin.' 
 [ticle proposed; then tlie following: 
 |"Aiid whereas the Government of the United States lias contended 
 
 at the said claims were included in the Treaty; and 
 |'•^VlM'reas both (lovernments a(h)pt for the futures the prin(;iple that 
 piiiis for remote or indirect losses should not be admitted as the result 
 
 failure to ol)serve neutral obligations, so far as to declare that it will 
 
Pi '^^ 
 
 kmm 
 mgm 
 
 
 :?, 
 
 .?:■• 
 
 
 Ni^H:' 
 
 ■J ■■■i.'^.y 
 
 !'^;V-^' 
 
 ' , ' - "it 
 
 100 COKRIOSI'ONDKNCE RESPECTINO GENEVA AKIUTRATION. 
 
 lion'iil'tcr ji'iiido tim (!()n(lnct of both (Joveniiiii'iit* in tlicir rt'latioiis witli 
 PiU'li otiicr; iKiw, tln'icfoic, 
 
 " In con.siilciation tlicroof, tlu' President of the United States, l>y and 
 with the ailviee and consent ol' the Senate thereof, consents that iu^ will 
 inal<e no claim on tiie part of the United States, in respect of indirect 
 h»-' as aforesaid, before the Tribnnal of Arbitration at (leneva." 
 
 ii will, withont delay, inform Lord Granville that, in pursnanco et 
 i.,.i action of the Senate, the I'resident will ne^otiatif a new article in 
 the terms and to the etVect of the forejjoinj;'. Y(m will also say to him 
 that the two Honscs of Conjiress hav(^ passed a concnrrent res(>lution to 
 adjourn niiia die on tht! L'Otli instant, and that a treaty embodying 
 the article must bo ])resented to the Senate and receive its ai)proval. 
 It is important, therefore, tliat antlunity be speedily j-iven to Iler Maj- 
 esty's ]\iinister here to si<;ii the convention, if the IJritish Government 
 concludes to enter into the agreement. 
 
 A copy of the *article has been furnished to Sir Edward Thornton. 
 
 •Till) (litliiriMiccs ln(t\V(M!ii till) Ai'ticilo snj^i^ostDil l)y Gri'ivt Hritiiiii, siil)iiiitte(l to tlii' 
 Senate iliiy i:$, iuid tlio Article! joloptcd by tlio .Sciiiitc May 'Sy, arc shown in iiaiallcl 
 colunniH Itclow. TIks left-hand colnnin ^ivcs the text ])i(>iM)st!<l Ijy Great Jhilain ; the 
 rif^ht-liand cohinui shinvs the ulterationn made by the Senate: 
 
 WliereaH tlie Gnvevnnient of Iter JJritan- 
 iiie Majesty ban eont<'n(h'd in tlie recent eor- 
 res]i()n(lcnee with the (iovernnient of the 
 United States as follows, namely : That 
 sneh indirect claims as those for tin- na- 
 tional lossi's stated in the Cast; ])resented, 
 on the jiart of the Government of the 
 UnitedStates, to the Tribunal of Arbitration 
 at Gcnevii, to have been snstained l)y the 
 loss in the tiansfcr of the American com- 
 niercinl marine to th»! IJritish Hag; the en- 
 hanced jiaymcnts of insurance; the i)ro- 
 lonijation of the war, and the addition of a 
 large snin to the cost <if the war and the 
 snji]iressii)n of the rebellion — Firstly, were 
 not inclnded in the Treaty of Washington, 
 and fnrther, ami secondly, should not be 
 adnutted in i)rincii)lB as growing ont of the 
 acts connnitttMl by particular vessels, al- 
 leged to hav(! I)e(^n enabled to commit de- 
 predations upon the shii)ping of a bellige- 
 rent, by reason of such want of due dili- 
 gence in the iierformance of the neutral 
 obligations iis that which is imputed by the 
 United States to Great Britain; and 
 
 Whereas the Government of Her Hritan-"\ 
 nic Majesty has also declared that the prin- 
 ciple involved in the second of tin; conten- 
 tions, hereinbefore set forth, will guide 
 their conduct iu future; and 
 
 Whereas the President of the United 
 States, whilst adhering to his cont(!ntion 
 that the said claims were Included in the 
 Treaty, adopts for the future the principle 
 contained in the second of the saiil conten- 
 tions, so far as to declare that it will here- 
 after guide the conduct of the Governnu'ut 
 of the United States, and the two countries 
 are therefore agn^ed in this respect. 
 
 In consideration thereof the President of 
 the United States, by and with the advice 
 and consent of the Semite thereof, consents 
 that he will make no claim on tlie part of 
 the United States, in respect of indir;"-; 
 losses as aforesaid, before the Tribunal of 
 Arbitration at Geneva. 
 
 Wherciis the Government of the United 
 States has contended that the said claims 
 were included in theTreatj-; and 
 
 Whereas l)oth Governments adopt for 
 the future the principle that claims for 
 remote or indirect losses should not be ad- 
 mitted as the result of failure to observe 
 neutral obligations, so far as to declare 
 that it will hereafter guide the conduct of 
 both Governments in their relations with 
 each other: Now, therefore, 
 
 
rRATION. 
 
 CORKESPONDKNCE KKSl'KCTIXO GENEVA ARBITRATIOX. 101 
 
 ir rt'liitioiis witli 
 
 (1 States, l>y J»"<1 
 L'lits that lu^ will 
 (|)('ct of iiHliioi^t 
 it (Jeiiova." 
 ill imisuanco ol 
 a new artiele in 
 also say to liiin 
 ent res(»lutiou to 
 L'aty cmbodyiiij,' 
 ive its approval, 
 veil to Iler Maj- 
 iish Govcruinent 
 
 aid Tlioriiton. 
 
 1, siibinittiMl to (lie 
 '. shown ill ))ai'ii1li'l 
 (ii'ciit Ih'ilaiii ; the 
 
 ,:, . M .,, M. -r ■',■■ XO. 40. ■ 
 
 r • Mr. Fish to (h'lieml Sclieuch: > <- 
 
 No. L'lo.J I Department OF State, 
 
 '. ir«.vA//u//o», J/^(j/L'S, 1872. 
 
 Sir : I have to acl<iio\vle(l<;e the receipt of your (lis[)ateh of the 1 Ith 
 instant. No. --."), rehitiiij,' to the proposed new artieh; to the Treaty of 
 ,May -S, 1S71, and the nienioranduin wliicih aeeoinpanied it. Tliat inein- 
 oiiimhiin is a very able and eoini>reliensive review of the ease, ami pre- 
 sents tlie ])osition of the United States, in the main, very fully. 
 
 The object of the United States in inaistiiifj on retainin<^ the indirect 
 cliiiins before the tribunal was: 
 
 r. The ri^ht under the treaty to present them. 
 
 II. To have them disjuwed of and removed from further controversy. 
 
 III. To obtain ad(M'ision eitlier tor or against the liability of a neutral 
 tor (claims of that description. 
 
 IV. If the liability of a neutral for such claims is admitted in the 
 future, then to insist on ])ayment by Great Jiritain for those of the 
 past. 
 
 V. Ilavinj;- a case a<;ainst (Jreat I'ritain, to have the same principle 
 iipplied to it that may in tiie future be invoked a;j;ainst the United 
 States. 
 
 1 am, sir, vour obedient servant, 
 
 nA:\IILT()X FISII. 
 (leneral Kohert ( '. Sciienok, dv, dr., i(t. 
 
 Xo. 41. 
 
 (SeiwruJ Scltrnclc to Mr. Fi.sh. 
 
 cut of tlu! Unitt'd 
 it tlio said cliiinis 
 eaty; and 
 nnients adopt for 
 lo that claims for 
 s should not be ad- 
 failure to observi' 
 far as to declare 
 ide the conduct of 
 eir relations with 
 ore, 
 
 ['l'cl(';^i-ani.] 
 
 London, Mai/ 28, 1872. (Received at 1.1") a. m.) 
 1 cimununicated your telegram of yesterday to Lord (iianville. lie 
 submitted it to the cabinet, who took it under long considerafion. lie 
 lias Just given me their answer. It is as follows : 
 
 "Her Majesty's (lovernment are of opinion that the definition by the 
 Senate of the princi[>le which both Governments are jireparcd to adojit 
 tor the future is so vague that it is imixissible to state to what it is, or 
 is not, ai)]tlicable, and they believe that it would only lead to future mis- 
 understandings. They ])refer the article as they had draughted it, but 
 have no objection to accept the article in the form lu'ojiosed by the Sen- 
 ate, with the substitution of the words 'of a like nature,' for the words 
 'for remote or indirect losses,' and the substitution of the words 'such 
 want of due diligence on the jiart of a neutral,' for the words ' the failure 
 to observe neutral obligations.'" 
 
 In rejily to my iiif|uiry of Lord Granville, whether any ])ossible inter- 
 ])retation of the form proposed by the Senate would be held by them 
 to prevent taking before the Arbitratcns, to be considered by them in 
 11. iking their award, that part of the claims which relates to the cost of 
 pursuit and capture of cruisers, he states that he must on behalf of Her 
 Majesty's Government decline to answer my question as to the etlect of 
 
1 »1 J» 'l 
 
 i 
 
 102 CORRICSPONDKNCK KKSPKCTINO CKNKVA ARlilTKATION. 
 
 tli<^ iiiticlo as iiUtMcd liy tlic Souatt', or to sta ": what possible construe 
 tion it may Ix'ar. Lord (iiaiivilh^ says \n^ lias iiit'oniicd Sir lithviinl 
 Thornton that \u' may tell you llcr Ma,j(\sty's (lovernmont will not insist I 
 on the w«)r(ls you (hisiro to omit from tlui prcMUibh' if you will yivej 
 assurance in writin;;' that the Tnited States will a/^ree to tlut form of note 
 he proposed (lommunicatin;;' llie ('onvention on tlie part of tiie two (Jov I 
 ernments to the Trihunal of Arhitration. Jiord (Iranville tells me <!(>ii| 
 tidentially that Thornton informed him you had stated that the Coiii- 
 juittee on Foreign AtVaiis was reatly to recommend the lollowiu};' form: 
 "And whereas the (lov<'rnnu'nt of the L'niteil Htat<'s contend that tlii' 
 said claims were iiu^luded in the Treaty, now tlu^ two(iovernments a{>rt'i' 
 that the principle involved in the second of the contentions hereinbefore] 
 set forth by Her IMajesty's (lovernment will s'U'«l^' th«'ir conduct iit| 
 future in their relations with each other;'' which proposal he says t\m 
 were prei)ared to adopt. 
 
 ' . I ..' ■-,. 
 
 ■ *•.>■ 
 
 
 
 - ¥ 
 
 .,. ^.. 
 
 "■!.-. 'J";- 
 
 I ■, '■■.l\'' jr.. ,1 ■'» 
 
 No. 42. 
 
 Mr. Fisli tn (Jciuinl tScIunck. 
 ['IVli'jjraiii.] 
 
 Washington, Mai/ L\S, ISTi'. 
 This (iovernnu^nt declines to aj^ree to tlu^ proposed altering;- of tlie 
 supplementary article. The establishment of the jirinciple embodied 
 therein has been its object in adherinji' to the presentati«)n of the indirect I 
 claims, and its recoynilion is the inducement ibr not ]»ressinjj llu'iii| 
 before the tribunal. 
 
 No. -i'\. 
 
 (Unvral Svhvnvl; to Mr. Fish, 
 [Trl.-iam.J 
 
 V London, May 28, 1872. (Received .May 29, 7.30 a. m.) 
 
 Lord Granville has to iiijuht, after another Cabinet, sent me the fol- 
 lowing' further communication : 
 
 
 '■: ."it.r" "• .1: 
 
 [*■ '>'.■.■-■.■ 
 '.}•' ■ -..-1, ■ 
 
 
 m^ 
 
 ■'•; r^ 
 
 [ItJarl Granville to General Schenck.] 
 
 " [ think it desirable at once to address to you the following: observa- 
 tions in addition to what is stated in my letter of yesterday. Her 
 Majesty's Government proposed an articile on the sn}>:f>estion of the 
 American Government ; that article has been amended by the Senate. 
 Her Majesty's Government are not able to tind for it, as amended, any 
 means or standard of interpretation; the words appear to include the willful 
 misconduct of a neutral, as well as a failui'e from want of due diligence. 
 They (tannot sui)pose this to be the meaninji- of the American Govern- 
 ment. Her Majesty's Government hold all the claims made by tlie 
 United States for losses which were the direct results of the acts ot 
 vessels mentioned in the Treaty, to be claims for indirect losses as the 
 result of the failure to observe neutral obligations. Her ]Majesty's (Gov- 
 ernment hold manv of the claims for the losses above nu'iitioned to be 
 
RIUTUATION. 
 
 it poHsildc (•oiistnic 
 
 iiiiiMit will not iiisLsil 
 tic if you will ojvc 
 'to tlu'lonn ol' nuw 
 •art of tlio two (Jov 
 iivillc t«'lls uw con- 
 tilted tiiiit the (.'omi 
 tilt' followiiif;- fonii; 
 «'.s coiitt'iHl that till' I 
 
 (ioVt'llJUUMlt.S ayit'c 
 'Utioiis lK'i'(Uiibi'tbi'e| 
 tht.'ir (jonduct iii| 
 oposal he says tlun 
 
 CORRKSPONDKXCK IlKSI'ECTINTi OKNEVA ARniTRATIOX. 103 
 
 IrliiiiiiH for losses which are leinote as well as indirect, while n'sidfiiif;; 
 
 ]fi(»iii ii failure to ohserve neutral <»l)lijrations. Her Majesty's (lovern- 
 
 liiu'iit are unable to sijunify an assent to a lorin of article, of which they 
 
 Iciinnot lor themselves discover the sc(»|)e, and with resjiect to which. 
 
 Lwiiili', probably, to tln^ diniculty of telejiiaphic cotninunication, they 
 
 liiive n(»t be«'n ajtprised of the nu-aniny whiih the Ain(Mican (lovernnient 
 
 iitliiclii's t«» it, or of the reasons which have led to its beinj^' jiroposcil. 
 
 If tlic (iovei'Minent of the United States think it di'sirable to n'lvv the 
 
 infonnation which Her Majesty's (iovei'unu'Ut wish to receive on these 
 
 jpiiiiits, and also think that for that purpose some adjournment of the 
 
 time of meeting' of the Arl>itrators at (ieneva shouhl take place, l!er 
 
 .Majesty's iJovernment would be ready to ajjree to any suitable proposal 
 
 lor tiiat purpose, which tlu>y i)resume could ordy be done by a short 
 
 ti''alv l>etween the two (Jovernments." 
 
 H 
 
 ON, Mat/ L'H, iSTl'. 
 •sed altering' of tlic 
 jninciple embodied I 
 ition of the indirect 
 not pressinjj tlieiii 
 
 ly L'O, 7.;}0 a. m.) 
 t, sent me the fol- 
 
 'ollowin}4' observa- 
 yesterday. Her 
 
 suj>j)estion of tlio 
 
 ed by the Senate, 
 as amended, any 
 ncludethewillfiil 
 of due dilij^ence. 
 
 American Govern- 
 ns ma<le by the 
 
 ts of the acts of 
 •ect losses as the 
 
 'r ^lajesty's (Jov- 
 mentioned to be 
 
 No. 44. 
 
 Mr. Fisli to (iciicral 8chencl<. 
 [Extrait.] 
 
 No. I'll. I • Dkpautmknt 01' Statk, 
 
 WasliiniitoHj May lis, ISTl'. 
 
 Silt; Late last eveidu};' Sir Edward Thornton <!alled at my house, 
 liavinj:', as he stated, a telefiiani from Lord (Iranvilh', the ^eneial i>nr- 
 |)(»rt of which he mentioned, to the elVect that the British (iovt'iiunent 
 haviMj>' received the amembuent jn-oposed by this flovernment to their 
 |])n)p(Ksed su])i)lemental article, would prefer their own drauj^ht, but that 
 tlicy would accept the i)ropose(l alteration, substitutin;j,'. however, for the 
 I words " for remote or indirect losses," the words " of a like nature,'' and 
 for tlu^ words "failure to observe neutral obli.nations,'" the words "such 
 want of due dili<;ence on tlu! part of a neuti'al."' 
 
 1 told hiui franl'ly, and earnestly, that no chanj^'e or alteration of any 
 kind is adnnssible or can be entertained. 1 atlded that the United 
 .States, now have a (!ase aj>ainst (Ireat Jiritain, he interrupting me by 
 sayinji, "the United States think they now Inive a ca.se.'' 1 jn'oeeeded, 
 sayiny; that it nuide no difference, that having- now a ca.se, they desire 
 to ])ress it for a decision, or to have the priiu-iple of exemption of 
 national liability for iinlire(!t losses established for the future; that that 
 principle is theerpuvalent or consideration of abstaining from a dennuid 
 before the Tril)unal for danniges on account of the indirect los.ses; that 
 as now altered, the article i)revents the presentation of indirect claims 
 aRain.><t the UnitedStates,onaccountof th(! Fenian raids, while the Ibitish 
 draught would exclude oidy claims ari.sing from the acts of ve.s.sels, &c., 
 and under circnnistances which nniy jtossibly never again occur. * * 
 
 He then asked me about the ])reamble and the proposed note to the 
 Arbitrator.s. Jn reply, I told him that it was u.seless to discuss either 
 while his (lovernnHMit is contemplating any change in the article. 
 
 ITe said it might be well to have an understanding, in order to .save 
 time in case his Government accept the alterations made to the article. 
 
 In this view, I showed him a draught of a preamble which had been pre- 
 ])ared in the J)epartment, reciting, simply, that the two Governments, 
 <leeniing it advisable that " there should i)e an additional article to the 
 Treaty signed at Washington on the 8th day of JMay, 1871, have for that 
 
 ij 
 

 I'' iA^ 
 
 
 » ■' / • ■• 
 
 
 
 
 i'^^i:---: 
 
 
 104 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 l)iirpose iianiLMl as their Plenii)otcntiiU'io.s, " &tj., and sayiii}? tliat I see noj 
 occasion lor any otlicr recital; and that as to tlie j)roi)ose(l note we will 
 not sifi'ii it. He asked if there was any objection to their signing- sndi 
 note, to which I replied that we could not control them in that respect; I 
 they had the i)o\ver to make such representations to the Tribunal as tiioy 
 thought ])roper; that there might be no objection on our i»art to the 
 former i>art of the proi)osed note, but that the latter clause was iiot] 
 necessary, as the effect of the article accomplished what was'then stated 
 as a request; that we would lay the Treaty, if agreed to, before the Tri 
 bunal, and our counsel would be gnided by it, and would abstain froiiij 
 making any claim on account of the indirectt losses ; but I desired not to 
 bo conunitted in advance of the agreenuMit to the article. 
 
 1 then referred to the (piestion raised by your t(^legram, received yos 
 terday, as to the effect of the article upon tlie claim for expense of pin- j 
 suit of the cruisers, and added that I did not think there conld be any 
 doubt, as l)oth (iovernments had, through the whole correspondence, 
 treated this as a direct claim. With some reserve and caution, and (lis I 
 claiming any authority to speak, he remarked that he believed tliiit 
 claim had been created as a direct claim ; one on which the Tribunal was 
 to pass, and decide whether or not it be one for which compensation is | 
 to be made. 
 
 lam this morning in the receipt of your telegram eomnuinicatiiij; | 
 the ])roposed changes to the article wliich !Sir Edward Tiiornton liad 
 communicated to me, as above mentioned. 
 
 Liu'd (Jranville's evasion of a reply to your question respecting tlii' 
 pursuit, &c., of the cruisers, is signiticant and suggestive of caution. 
 
 It is very jjossible that the whole thing will fail; if so, this country 
 will stand before the world having done all that it <;oidd to maintain 
 the Treaty, and the civilizing |)riiici|»le which it established. The respon- 
 sibility of fadure must rest with (Jreat Ibitain, who evidently will havi 
 shown a reserved intent, and an object of future advantage not avowed. 
 * * * Much as this (Tovernment \\\\\ r(\gret the failure, it can stand 
 it as well as can (Ireat IJritain. 
 
 Tliere are some tilings in the telegram reeeiv<'d this morning whicli 
 may recpiire comment; but 1 iiu-line to iiope that what may seem arro- 
 gant in Lord (Iranville's remark, that he will not insist on certain 
 language in the proposed iireamble, arises from tlie constraint .of tlic 
 telegrajihie form of c(unmnnication; and so, too, the suggestion of a con- 
 dition that assurance be given, in writing, ol Certain things. 
 
 As i)res('nted in your telegi'am, these observations appear su<'h as 1 
 ■ am contident you would not have listened to, without repelling them. 
 1 conlideiitly hope that their unpleasant api»earance is to l)e attriltutci' 
 to the style of telegrapliicr eorivspoiidcnce. 
 
 Sir Edward Thornton was told by me, sonu^ d.iys since, what 1 nndci 
 stood Avould ]>rol)al»ly be the expectiMl change recommended by tlic 
 Senate committee, ile has made .some mistakes in transmitting it. I 
 gave him no coi)y ; h<' must lia\e reported it from memoiy. Hut wli;il 
 ever it was, it was a thing under consideration, and thi' committi'c'"> 
 ri'port was changed by the Senate. I see, therefore, no impoitaiu'e tn 
 be attached to a variance in the linal action of the Senate from what 
 was at one time expeetfd ; although what was expected is (iiifeicnt 
 from what Lorfl (Iranville has understood to have been expected. 
 
 am, su'. vour obedu'nt servant. 
 
 [iA.MlLTON ElSll. 
 
 
 (ieueral Ifoni'.irr C. Sciiiinck, dv., dv., i(c. 
 
RBITRATION, 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 105 
 
 .saying tliut I soe iio| 
 ■oi)oseiI note we will 
 tiioir signing siicli 
 leni ill that respect;! 
 :lie Tribunal as titoy 
 on our i)art to the 
 ItiiT clause was not 
 hat was'tlien stated | 
 (1 to, l)efV)re the Tri- 
 would abstain from 
 but I desired not to I 
 I'tiele. I 
 
 jiiani, received yes I 
 tor expense of pur- 
 there conld be any 
 )le correspondence, 
 nl caution, and (lis 
 t he believed tlnit 
 •h the Tribunal wns 
 eh conipensaiion is 
 
 am coininunicatiiij;! 
 vard Tiiornton liad 
 
 tion respectinjn' the 
 
 'Stive of caution. 
 
 if so, this country 
 
 could to maintaiii 
 
 |ished. The respon- 
 
 vidently will havi 
 
 ita.i>e not avowed, 
 
 lure, it can stand 
 
 is ni(U'iiin<4' wliicli 
 it may seem arro- 
 insist on certiiiii 
 constraint .ot tiic 
 ;,ii'esli()n of a con- 
 iiM<;s. 
 
 appear such as 1 
 It repellin.!-' tiieni, 
 s to be attributed 
 
 <-e, what 1 unilci' 
 mineiKk'd by the 
 iansmiltin,i>- it. 1 
 nory. Ibit \vh;it- 
 the couimittec's 
 no importance to 
 M'uale from wliot 
 'cted is dilfercnt 
 n ex)»ected. 
 
 1/iOX FISil. 
 
 No. 45. 
 
 Mr. Finh to Generol Scliencl: 
 
 [Tclogram — Extract.] 
 
 WASiirxdTON, May 2J», 1872. 
 
 Your telegram of last night received tliis morning. We cannot uuder- 
 .stand the objections which Lord (Granville raises. Jle raises new issues, 
 but suggests nothing in the direction of au agreement. Criti(;ism and 
 (ilijcction without suggestions lea<l to no results, and do not give 
 assuiaiHJC of a desire to harnuuiize diifering ■•iews. 
 
 You have informally suggested various modes of agreemenr, but 
 (beat lUitain has met all with the demand to withdraw claims wliicdi 
 we feel we were justilied under tlie Treaty in ])reseuting, while the obli- 
 ;;ations whicli Great Britain has in various f<unis i)rotfered on her part 
 liaveall been substantially the same, and have been vague, uncertain, 
 ideal, aiul not likely ever to become available. 
 
 Tiie article proposed by the Senate is fair, caiulid, and reciprocal. 
 Tiiis Government has endeavored to express its views, objects, and 
 iiieaiiing with respect to the princijde embodied therein in the corre- 
 spondence which has taken place, and in the commuiucations which you 
 liave had with Iler ^Majesty's ^linister of Foreign Affairs. 
 
 As the juoposed article, if it is to become a treaty, must be signed 
 iind be submitted to the Senate ibr ajtproval, but two days remain 
 witliin whicli that approval can !»<> had, and the Treaty ibrwarded to 
 London to eiuible tlu' ratifications to be exchanged in tinu' to be pre- 
 .scnted to the Arbitrators at their nu-eting in .luue. 
 
 Further (explanations of the views of the Government seem, therefore, 
 iniuo.ssible to be interchanged between here and London ; but you nmy 
 be able to explain these views as they have been communicaicd to you 
 iioni this J)e])artnu'nt. 
 
 Tlie President is extremely anxious to i»reserve a treaty embodying 
 iuid giving i)ractical application to the doctrine of arbitration as a mode 
 of .settUng international ditVerences, and lor that end has been willing 
 to make large concession.s. 
 
 You will call the attention of Her Majesty's Minister to the fact that 
 ludess the Treaty be sigiu'd and approved by the Semite .so that the 
 President's ratilication can leave here the day alter to-morrow and go 
 by Saturday's steamei, it cannot reach Loiulon in liiiui to be there ex- 
 clianged, and be jtresented to the Arbitrators at their meeting on l.lth 
 .buie. 
 
 1'he suggestion ol' another treaty to adj(uirn the meeting at Gene\a 
 scciiis impracticable. The Senate is in the last days of its ses.siou, with 
 much important legislation i)euding, and every hour of its tim(> pre- 
 occupied, in the absence of any iiulication of a dis|)ositiou on the part 
 uf the Ibitisb (b)V(U'Uinent to suggest anything to wliiidi this(M)vern- 
 mcnt could assent, it would be impossible to secure enough of the time 
 of the Senate to agree to a treaty which pioiuises only further delay 
 and ]U(tci'astination. 
 
 I regret not to .see au indication of a desire «u' disposition on the part 
 of the ibitisb (b)vcrnment to come to an agreement wlii(di will be 
 lionoiable to this (btxcriMucnt. 
 
 if the Ibitisb (b)vernment has any propo.sals to make they will be 
 I'aiily considered, with the most sinceie desire of a frank, friendly, and 
 
 kf.} 
 

 106 CORRESPONDENCK RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 lionomble aj^reoiniMit. We neither ask nor will consent to an.vtliiii;| 
 
 else. 
 
 * # • » « ' * 
 
 Tlie tDiie of Lord (Ininville's notes seems to assume that the SeiiatJ 
 and this (roverninoiit are to accept what (Jreat IJritain irmy have .siij.| 
 iU'ested. Our view is very different. 
 
 
 
 -f A-'* 
 
 f:,^ 
 
 General Schencl- to Mr. Fish. , , 
 
 [Tck'^nain.] ; 
 
 London, ^lay 30, 1872. (lleeeived U |>. m.j 
 Your teley;ram of yesterday n'ceived and communicated to Lonl 
 (Jranville. lie said he woidd confine himself to one I'emark, namely, 
 that your statement at the bef>ii"iinj? from the words " lie raises,] 
 down to the word " views,'' was inexplicable to him. What had been tlici 
 course they had pursued? They had at the request of the (iovernmcntl 
 of the United States draujihted an article founded on an idea of that (lovf 
 eminent. The Government of the United States had anuMided tliiij 
 article, and in answer they had not merely stated an objection to tlie 
 amendment, but had dranj;hted a reamencled article for their (ronsidoi j 
 ation. lie said he would not nuike any i'urther ar}:,unu'nt until he liai 
 submitted to his colleagues the communication which had just bwiij 
 made to him. 1 stated that 1 did not wish to go into any argumoiit,] 
 but wonldjust state again what was my view of the i)resent situation iunl 
 difference between ns, though it was but repeating former statements, 
 said to him, "I assume that your object, like ours, is to affirm tliel 
 ])rinciple that neutrals are not to be held liable for indirect and rein(it([ 
 damages, which nniy be the result of a failure to observe neutral oblil 
 gallons, and to establish that i)rincii)le as a rule to be observed betweeiij 
 our two nations. Your proposed form of article, as it was amended livl 
 the Senate, we think does tliat. You thiidc it is too vngue. AVe thiiikj 
 yonr pro])()sal, either as originally made or as modified by your i)roposeilj 
 amendment of the language of the Senate, would be altogether uucer [ 
 tain, as a rule in ])raetice confnies itself to hyporhetical cases whi(;li iniiyj 
 never occur, and, instead of recognizing and a])i)lying the geiuMiil 
 l)rinciple, limits the rule to some three classes only of indirect elaiins, 
 being those which are put forward by the United States in their case at] 
 Gi^neva.*' The Cabinet is now in session. 
 
 No. 47. 
 
 (Iciicrdl Schciwk to Mr. Fish, 
 
 [-';m-> 
 
 No. 2V.\.\ Legation of the United Sta'J'es, 
 
 London, Mdi/'M), 187L'. (IJeceived .June 11.) 
 Sill: In(!losed with this 1 send (u)))ies of all written eoirespondeniT 
 which has i)assed between liord (Iranville and me since my No. iM'.l. 
 These notes, taken in connection with the several telegrams which have 
 
ARBITltATION. 
 
 COHRKSPONDENCK UESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 107 
 
 consent to aii.vtliiii;| 
 
 ^nnio that the Senntfl 
 U'itain may have siiyl 
 
 (Received 1) p. lu.) 
 riiuimicated to Lonll 
 one ivniark, namely,! 
 
 words " He laisos,] 
 I. What had been tbi 
 st of the (iovernnu'iitl 
 n an idea of that(iov 
 .s had amended thai 
 
 an objection to tin- 
 le lor tlieir (ionsidoi I 
 ■{^ument until he liadj 
 ivhich had Just bwiij 
 
 into any arfjfumeiit.f 
 present situation amli 
 Drmcr statements. I| 
 urs, is to atiii-n; tlii'l 
 
 indirect and remotij 
 observe neutral obli I 
 
 >e observed between I 
 it was amended livl 
 va<>ue. We tliii 
 d by your proposed I 
 
 )e altoj^ether uncor- 
 d cases whitdi niiiy! 
 )lyin{>' the general 
 
 y of indirect chums, j 
 
 ites in their case at 
 
 Lsscd between you and me, of wliich copies are also forwarded to you 
 kitii another dispatch to day, will brin;>' up the history of what has taken 
 hlace here lor the last live days in relation to the proi)osal for a sup- 
 hleiiientary treaty. Your telejiram of the U8tli, declininj;', on the part 
 If tiie, IJniied States, to af>re(^ to the proposed alterinj;' of tlu' supple- 
 lieiitiiry treaty, was recH'ived in the nij;lit and communicated to Jjord 
 flriinville very early Acsterday niorniiij;'. I would yive you, witli these 
 loniinents, some narrative and comments, and it was Jiiy intention to 
 in so. but your lon;^' tclcfiiam in answer to the observations of Lord 
 hiiuivilie, contained in his note which 1 tele<;rai»hed to you in full at 
 hiidni^lit of the I'.Sth, has tiiis moMU'ut arrived iuid reipiires to be de- 
 [ililicred and to liave my immediate attention, so that it will not be 
 hossible to j^ive any other comnuinication by the mail which is made up 
 |or (^»iieenstown to-day. 
 
 I have the honor to be, sir, vour obedient servant, 
 
 iior.Kirr c. ^("iiknck. 
 
 Hon. ITamilton Fish, 
 
 iSn-rctan/ of <S7«/e, W<isJnii(/t<»i, I). C. 
 
 [Iu('lo.snr(' 1 ill No. -17.] 
 
 JJdfl (imnrlUe to General Sehem-V. 
 
 FoiM'JcfN OFFfCE, Mdii LIT, 1872. 
 
 Su!: I in.structcd Sir 10. Thornton to communicate to Mr. Fi.sh the 
 M'coiiipaMyi'iy form of preamble to which Her IMajesty'sdoveriMnent were 
 l)i'('l)ared to aj^iee in ca.se a convention should be (^oneluded embodyin<>; 
 jlic (hauj;ht article. I have learned from Sir K. Thornton that ]Mr. Fi.sli 
 Ivoiihl ])refer the omission of tlie words "in oider that tlie .samci may 
 [)(' conimnnicated to the Tribunal of Arbitration, appointed under the 
 |irst article of tlu^ Treaty signed at Washin.iiton on tlie Sth of .Alay, 
 ISTl, for the gnidance of the i)roi;eedinj;s of tliat Tribunal," and i have 
 tin's day informed Hir K. Thornton that he may tell ^Iv. I-'ish that ller 
 Miijesty's Ciovernment will not insist on the words which he desires to 
 3iiiit in tlu' preamble, if he will j^ive tSir IC. Thornton an assurance in 
 rritinj;' that the Ciovernment of the United States will agree to the 
 I'onii of note which T proposed, and of which I sent you a copy on the 
 L'Otli instant, comniunicatin};' the convention on the i)art of the two 
 llovernments to the Tribunal of Arbitration at (leneva. I iiave to add 
 tliat Sir ]•]. Thornton has a general full i>ower enabling him to sign a 
 I'diivention, and instructions to <lo so if llu' pi'oposals contained in this, 
 |\nd in my (>ther letters ol' tliis day's date, are agreed to. 
 
 1 liave tiie honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, \onr most 
 lohfdient, humble .servant, 
 
 (Hi AN villi:. 
 
 ('■('Mcial !{. C. ScHlLNCK. 
 
 (.IS 
 
 .'.Jt 
 
 (>^ 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 srn',1) Si'A'i'Ks, 
 -'ceived dune 11.) 
 
 en correspondence 
 
 sinc(^ my No. IMH, 
 
 egrams wliich have 
 
 ' [lllrlosillf V* ill Xo. 17. ] 
 
 Propos(<l preaitihlr lo siipplcmeiilal Irriitj/. 
 
 ller .Majesty tiie (^ueen of the Fnited Kingdom of (5reat Ibitain and 
 li't'laiid, and tlie Fiiited States of America, having resol\<'d to conclude 
 lii <'(iiiveiition in the terms of the arliclt^ liereinafter set forth, in order 
 

 
 
 ■\w^- 
 
 108 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 that tlie same may be commuiiieate<l to the Tribunal of Arbitration n 
 ])ointed under the tir.st artichi of the Treaty .si {;ne(l at Washiufjtoiii,, 
 the 8th of May, 1871, for the guidance of tlie |)roecedings of tliat Tij 
 bunal, have named as their Plenipotentiaries, that is to say 
 
 [Iiiolosiiio :{ in No. 47.] 
 Earl Gninrille to Grnentl Schenclx. 
 
 FoKEiGN Office, London, .May 27, 187i*. 
 
 Sir: 1 have lost no time in layinj^' before the Cabinet tin; telejiriijilij 
 disi)ateh I'rom Mr. Fish, which you communicated to ine this afteriiooil 
 informin<4' you of the result of the deliberations of the Senate on tliJ 
 draught article submitted for tlieir advice by the I'resident of tlie UiiitcJ 
 States. It appeared from this dispatch that the Senate had agreed tl 
 advise and con.sent to the adoi)tiou of the i)ropo.sed article, witii tli{ 
 substitution for the third and fourth paragraphs, of two paragraphs, 
 follows: 
 
 "And whereas the (lovernment of the United States has conteiKltil 
 that tlie .said claims were included in the Treaty ; and whereas boii] 
 (loverninents adopt for the future the ]>rinciple that claims for reiii(itf| 
 or indirect lo.sses should not be julmitted as the result of the failure i 
 observe neutral obligations, so far as to declare that it will hereal'td 
 guide the conduct of both Governments in their relations with eatl 
 other, now, therefore," &c. 
 
 In communicating this disjiatch to me you inquired whether any possi 
 ble inter[)retation could be given to the propo.sed article in the form i| 
 which the Senate have moditied it, taking all its parts together, wliici 
 would i)revent taking before the Arbitrators, to be considei'cd by tlioii 
 in making their award, that iiart of the (;laim called "direct claims" i| 
 the ca.se, which relates to the cost of pursuit and capture of cruisers. 
 
 I have now the honor to state that I must, on behalf of Her 3Iajest,\'' 
 Government, decline to answer the question which you have put to iii| 
 as to the eHect of the article as altered by the Senate, or to state wlia: 
 possible coiistruciioii it may bear. 
 
 Her .Majesty's Government are of opinion that the definition as tlioic 
 in expressed, of the principle which both (Jovernnients are ])repare(l tJ 
 adopt i'or the future, is so xague that it is impossible to state to wliatitj 
 is, or is not applicable, and they believe that it would only h'ad to futiiiJ 
 misunderstandings. That llcr .Alajesty's Government i)i'efer the arlitlJ 
 as they had draughted it, but have no olyjection to accept the article in tli| 
 form proposed by the Senate, with the substitution of the words "ot 
 like nature"' for the words "for remote and indirect losses," juid lli 
 su!)stitiilioii of the words "such want of due diligences on the i)art "I 
 neutral" Ibi' the woi'ds "the i'ailure to observe neutral oblignt'oiM 
 The article would then run thus: "And whereas both Governnuiil 
 adojit lor the lutiire the juinciple that claims of a like nature should iinj 
 be admitted as the result of such a want of due diligence on the yx 
 of a iKMitral. so lar as to declare that it will liereaft<-r guide the condm 
 i>f both Governments in their relaticms with each other.' 
 
 I have the honor to be, with the iiigln'st coiisidciation, sir, your nin: 
 obedient, liunible ser\aiit, 
 
 GUAN villi:. 
 
 Geni'inl S('1Ii;n;'K, 
 
 ,j ■ 
 
AUIUTRATION. 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTTVG GENEVA ARBITRATION. 109 
 
 nal of Arbitration u 
 umI at AVasliiiifftniiiii 
 occodiiigs of tiiat Til 
 t is to say 
 
 M)ON, ^[(t)j 27,1872, 
 
 abinct tin; tclcs'nil'iiiJ 
 I to Jiie tliis aftcniodii] 
 of tlie Senate on tliJ 
 'resident of the UnitJ 
 Senate had ayroedta 
 osed artiele, with tlit) 
 of two i)ara}i;rai)hs. 
 
 States has ('ontemy 
 y ; and whereas boiil 
 iiat claims for renioti 
 ■esult of tlie faihuei 
 that it will hereiifti'l 
 I" relations with oiKil 
 
 wmI whether any possij 
 article in the form iij 
 [)arts together, wliidi 
 e considered by tlioii 
 'd "direct claims" ij 
 aptui'c of crnisers, 
 lalf of Her .Ma.j('st,\'' 
 you have put to ml 
 ate, or to state wlnrf 
 
 le definition as tliorcj 
 
 Mits are prepared tl 
 
 e to state to what ill 
 
 d only lead to fiitiiil 
 
 Mit i)i'efor the arlidi 
 
 cept the article in tlit| 
 
 of the words "of; 
 
 M't losses," and 1li| 
 
 'lice on the i)art '>l';i| 
 
 neutral (»bli,i;iit'()ii<.| 
 
 both <lo\-eniiii('iit>[ 
 
 vc nature should iiol 
 
 ilif^cnce on the |i;ii'| 
 
 cr ■.'•nide the condin'l 
 
 heV; 
 
 ation, sir, your iiios!| 
 
 (iRANVILbi;, 
 
 [luclosurc 4 in \o. 47.] 
 
 General Schench to Earl Uranville, 
 
 Legation of the United States', 
 
 London, May 28, 1872. 
 
 Mv Loud: I received late last evening your note of yesterday's date, 
 
 iforiiiiny me, in relation to the form of preamble wliicli you had in- 
 
 tiiictod Sir Edward Thornton to communicate to ]Mr. Fish, as that to 
 
 jliicli Her ]\[iijest.v's (lovernmenfc were ])repared to agree in case a con- 
 
 loiition should be concluded embodying the draught article, that you had 
 
 Tjiicc learned from Sir Edward that Mr. Fish would prefer the omission 
 
 W the words " in order that the same may be communicated to the Tri- 
 
 (iniiil of Arbitration appointed under tlie first article of the Treaty 
 
 )j>iied at Washington on the 8th of 3Iay, 1871, for the guidance of the 
 
 Iroccedings of that Tribunal," and that you had informed Sir Edward 
 
 ||i(iiiiton that he might tell i\Ir. Fish that Her ^Majesty's (lovernntent 
 
 jiil not insist on the words which ho desires to omit in the preamble, if 
 
 |c will give Sir Edward Thornton assurance, in writing, that *^^he Gov- 
 
 ninu'iit of the United States will agree to the form of note which you 
 
 H'oposod, and of which you sent me a copy on the .' tli instant, com- 
 
 jiiiiicating the convention on the part of the two .'.jvernuicnts to the 
 
 hil)unal of Arbitration at Geneva. 
 
 Jn the same note you add that Sir Edward Thornton has a general 
 Jill power, enabling him to sign a convention, and instructions to do so 
 
 the proposals contained in that note and in your other letter of the 
 
 niie date are agreed to. 
 
 Immediately after the receipt of your note last night I communicated 
 
 31r. Fish, by telegraph, information of that instruiition you had giveii 
 
 Sir Edward Thornton in regard to omitting the words in question 
 
 [•oiu the preamble. I had previously, and early in the day yesterday, 
 
 lographed to Mr. Fish the information you had already given me ver- 
 |iilly, that Sir Edward Thornton had a full power to sign a convention. 
 
 Ihit I remark now, that the instructions to Uer Majesty's Minister at 
 
 rashington ai)pear by your note to have been given to be exercised on 
 
 condition. I beg to know from Your Lordship if I am to understaiul 
 liat Sir Edward Thornton's authority to sign i;; limited by his instruc- 
 lons, ami only to be used in the case that the proposals contained in 
 jour notes addressed to me yesterday arc agreed to by the United 
 Mates. 
 
 1 have tlie honor to be, with the highest consideration, ni}' Lord, Your 
 Lordship's njos obedient servant, 
 
 IJOBT. 0. SCIIEXCK. 
 
 The liight lion. Eabl GkANVILLE. 
 
 ' [Inc'losnre 5 in No. 47.] 
 
 General SclieneJc io Earl Granville. 
 
 Legation oi^' the Unitim) STAT];^<, 
 
 London, May 28, 1872. 
 
 Mv Lord : 1 received last night, between !> and 10 o'clock, your note 
 liloriiiiiig me that you had lost no tinn in laying before the Cabinet the 
 |i'k'gr.i[>hic dispatch from Mr. Fish, wliicli 1 communicatod to you yes- 
 
 m 
 
 mi 
 
 ' S ' w J 
 
 ■■■' +•■" 
 
 v:,^' 
 
t, ^;•<■.■ < . 
 
 
 '.r I ■* I 
 
 :-f. ;*,■■■ . ■ 
 
 ■m 
 
 'fA-^: 
 
 f-i;^.'^.;- 
 
 
 110 CORKESPONDEXCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 tci'day, iiifoniiin,!;' you of the rosult of tlic del ibcrat ions ,)f tlio Sciiaiti 
 oil tlic (liiui^iit article, siibiuitted for tlieir advice I)y the Piesident ii| 
 the United States. 
 
 Voii remark that in eoinmuiiieatiiij;' tliat dis|)ateli to you I iii(|uiivl 
 wliether any possibU' interpretation could be j>iven to tlie proposhjl 
 article in the form in which the Senate have niodilU'd it, takin,!;' all ii| 
 parts together, which would prevent taking' before tiie Arltitrators, to! 
 considered by them in makin,;;' their award, that part of tluM-laiin callcni 
 '' direct claims'" in the case, which relates to the (!ost of ])u suit am] 
 cai»tuie of cruisers: and you state that you must, on belrdf of ili' 
 3IaJesty's ( Joverutnent, decline, to answer tliat question as '.o the etftMil 
 of the article as altered by the Senate, or to static what possible conf 
 stvuction it may bear. 
 
 I will luM'e oidy int u'pise, an to that «|Ui»s!-i(vi, to s;iy that the. piiiiitl 
 was brou.i!,iit to your L')rdship's attention, in eonnectiou with tin] 
 delivery to you of tiie artic'le as t!u> Sunate- had jiroposed to aiir.Mid it,| 
 because I desired by the inepiiry to remind you tliat whatever inij;Ii 
 become the form in which the article mij>ht ultimately be adopted, itj 
 could not be intended to open any question in relation to claims to tlitf 
 introduction ot which Her Majesty's Government had never objectci 
 '•notwithstanding' the doubt liow far those claims, thoujih mentioiieill 
 (birin,i>' the (conferences as direct claims, came within the proper scope nij 
 arbitration." 
 
 1 quote the language of your Lordship's note to me of the 20th ofl 
 March last. The (loverninent of the United States is of opinion thatj 
 the language of the Senate cannot be interpi'eted to exclude those claims; 
 but lam now instructed to say that the article, in whatever form adoptcdl 
 as to the proceeding before the Arbitrators at (leneva, must be nndei [ 
 stood to prevent only the ])resentation of the chvinis enum<;rated in tkj 
 second contention, of Her Majesty's Government. 
 
 Your Lordship in this note inoceeds to inform me that Her ]\Lijest,v'i>| 
 Government are of opinion that the delinition, as expressed in tliel 
 Senate amendment, of the principle which both Governments sire pre 
 l)ared to adopt for the future is so vague that it is impossible to stiitcl 
 to what it is or is not applicable, and they believe that it would onlvj 
 lead to future misunderstandings. That Jler Majesty's Governineii;| 
 ])refer the article as they had draughted it, but have no objection to accei 
 the article in the form proposed by the Senate, with the substitution nfl 
 the words "of a like nature" for the words "ibr remote or indiroctj 
 losses," and tl.e substitution of the words "such want of due diligoiiccl 
 on the ])art of a neutral" for the words "the failure to observe neutrai 
 obligations." Tin; ai'ticle would then run thus: "And whereas botli 
 Governments adopt for the future the ])rincii)le that claims of a likii 
 nature should not be admitted as the result of su(di a want of due dili 
 gence on t!u' j^art of a iieutral, so far as to declare that it will herealrr;] 
 guide the conduct oi" both (iovernments in their relations with cimIi 
 other," 
 
 I hastened last night to telegraph the fidl substance ol'rill tiiis (Miii- 
 mnnication to ?ili'. I'Msli, 
 
 1 am as yet wilhout any answer to that telegram, and without in 
 struction or iiifbi'nie.tion as to th(> disjiosition of my (bu'ernmeiH t^' 
 enleitain or consider th<^ chiinges which Her Majesty's (btveniiiiciif 
 propose to the Senate's amendment. 15ut 1 am not i)re|)ared to belicM 
 that the modillcation can be asscMited to by tln^ President, Such chiinp| 
 of language would alter {ho whole character of the agreement. 
 
 I cannot permit to pass uinpiestioned the ex])ression of lh(> o])iiiiiin| 
 
ARBITRATION. 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 Ill 
 
 rations ,>r tlu^ Sciiuti 
 l>y tilt' Pii'siilciitJ 
 
 U'.h to you I iii(|iiinii 
 veil to tlio propDNiJ 
 ilu'd it, taiciii,y all it| 
 the Ariiitiiitors, toll 
 irt of t!i(M-laiiu callcill 
 cost ot* pii suit f 
 ist. on heir. If of lli| 
 •stioii as '.o tlK^ ct't'cf 
 i'. wliat possiUk'. coul 
 
 to s:iy that the pi)iii 
 ionneutiou with tliJ 
 roposiMl to iun«ii(l it,| 
 iiat whatever ini!-'! 
 lately be adopted, i!| 
 itioM to claims to tlit 
 had never objectcil, 
 IS, thoujih inentioiid 
 n the proper scope m 
 
 to nie of the 20th nil 
 tes is of opinion that| 
 Bxdude those chiiiiis; 
 atever form adopted,! 
 iieva, must be under 
 IS cuum<>rated in tluj 
 
 > that Her .Alajest.v'J 
 ,.s expressed in tbel 
 )veriiments are \)\\>\ 
 impossible to statcl 
 that it would oiilvl 
 jesty's fJovernineiitl 
 o objection to accept! 
 the substitution (ill 
 remote or indirectl 
 lilt of due diliu'eiiiT] 
 '. to observ<' neutriii 
 And whereas botli 
 ii:it claims of a likil 
 a want of «bie dili 
 at it will herealrc; 
 clations with ciicli 
 
 nee ol' nil tiii-^ (m.. 
 
 HI, and without in I 
 my (lovcrnmeiir \A 
 'sty's (Jovernniciitl 
 )reparcd to belicM 
 ent. Such cliiiii;;" 
 •rcement. 
 ■;ion of the o])iiiiiii!| 
 
 [f Her .^lajesty's (iovtrnment as to the vaji'ueness of the detinition ot 
 lie iirinciple which botii Oovcinments are prejiared to adopt, and of tlie 
 Jiii]»()ssii)ility of statiiij>' to '.hat it is or is not applicable, altlion<;h in 
 l('plyinj>' 1 may but in ef.ect I'cpeat what I said to you in an interview 
 )f tin- U'fh of this month, and of wlii(;h 1 uave you a memoiaiKhim in 
 
 h'ilin;,'. 
 What the United States has all alon.n' lu'oposed as the ^^round on 
 
 iliicli tiie two (loveriiments miyht sately, honorably, and consistently 
 ju'ct, is the establishment of a rule, to be the law or (contract in tlie 
 Itture between them, declarinjji' that neither of them shall demand com- 
 V'ii>ation from the otliei' for remote in' indirect losses arisiiij^' out of, or 
 \)c\i\'^ tlie result of, failure in the observance of neutral ol>li,uatioiis. 
 
 [liis rule should be the exjiression of a princiid*' to be applied to cases 
 Is tliey may arise ; and ouj;ht not to c(msist in a refcreiK^e to cases or 
 [ircuiiistances which mayor may not ever occur, and be limited to those 
 Instances, without application to other cases in which the damajic done 
 }r alle;;e(l may be eciually or further removed from the act of which it 
 [s assumed to be the result. 
 
 They do not see that there is vaf>ueness in such a lule or dilllculty in 
 Its application to facts, beyond what .may be said of any other priiu;i[)le 
 )iiibudied in statute or treaty law. 
 
 Consider, my Lord, what is the history of that difference b«'tween our 
 [wo Governments which has led to the ne<i;otiation for a supplemental 
 lioaty article. 
 
 The United States have put forward in their Case at Geneva, for the 
 Consideration of the Arbitrators, certain claims, to which the British 
 fioverniuent objects. Great Britain founds her objection to those claims 
 
 jot merely on her interpretation of the Treaty, according to which sh(^ 
 Insists they are inadmissible, but also on the ground that such claims 
 ire, from tlieir very character and nature, sucli as ought not to be pre- 
 kouted ; " that such claims," to use the emphatic language of Your Loiil- 
 pip, " are wholly beyond the reasonable scope of any treaty of arbitration 
 
 whatever, and that to submit them for decision by the Tribunal would 
 1)0 a measure frauglit vvitli pernicious consequences to the interests of 
 ill nations and to the future peace of the world.'' That Uer Majesty's 
 tJovernment " cannot see tliat it would be advantageous to either country 
 to render the obligations of neutrality so onerous as tliey would become 
 If claims of this nature were to be treated as proper subjects of iuterna- 
 fioiiid arbitration." 
 
 What is that nature of the claims in question which makes them so 
 )hjecti()nable to Her Majesty's (iovernment ? They are indirect, re- 
 ^iiote, consequential. 
 Will you then unite with us, asks the Government of the U.:ited 
 
 jtati's, in an agreement lounded upon that principle for which you con- 
 lend, and as broad as the priiicii>le itself, " that claims for remote or 
 indirect losses should not be admitted as the result of failure to observe 
 licntral obligations;" and will you unite with us in a dechiratioii that 
 
 liis principle '"will hereafter guiile the conduct of l)oth Govcrniiients in 
 
 iH'ir relations to each other :'" Can(ireat IWitain coiitinue to reply that 
 h\iiile she desires to make such a rule, a rule consistent with the posi- 
 tion she has taken against tlii^ whole class of remote or indirect claims, 
 [i.^ainst a neutral, sll!^ must persist in (lontining it in terms to only such. 
 iH'ciiliar deseriptions of that class of indirect claims as hapi)cn now to 
 w the subject of cont<'nti()n between her and the United States, and 
 hvliich particular kind of claims may never have existence again .' Will 
 |t not seem, if this be the limit of the agreement, that the oliject is not 
 
 n 
 
 m 
 "I 
 
 I 
 
 m 
 
 
 \*9 
 
 m 
 
 if 
 
 M 
 

 *:■■' 
 
 ■1 '.-. 1 .. 
 I v.. 1 ' :.', 
 
 •. , I- 
 
 112 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 to aflinn and viiidicivte an important principle, but only tofliulan oxpil 
 (lient for cxdudinj'' from consideration, or extiuftiiisiiinj? altogftliwj 
 certain matters wiiicli are unfortunately now a present cause of coiitin 
 versy ' 
 
 I have the honor to be, with tlui highest consideration, my LokI] 
 Your Lordship's most obedient servant, 
 
 ]{()r,T. C. SCIIKNCK, 
 
 The lJi"ht Honorable the ILVKL CIKA^'VII.LE. 
 
 .'J ;■■. 
 
 
 
 I" ■•'■ 
 
 r ■ , 
 
 [Iiiclosurc (i ill >«'(). 47.] 
 
 Earl dfani'lUe to GcniTal Sclirnch: 
 
 Foreign Office, London, Mai/ 28, 1S7J. 
 Sir: In reply to the iiKjuiry contained in your letter of this dayl 
 resptictinpf tiie limitation i)laced upon the immediate exercise by Si 
 Edward Tliornton of the general fidl power to sign treaties with wliiclj 
 he is provided, I have the honor to accpiaint you that while we are f;ii| 
 from asserting that the form of article proposed by Her Majesty's (iovl 
 eminent is notcai)able of further improvement upon suflicient cause btf 
 ing shown, Sir Edward Thornton has no instructions to use his 
 powers, except in accordance with the arrangement we have proposidj 
 I have the honor to be, sir, your most obedient, humble servant, 
 
 GRANVILLE. 
 General R. C. Sciienck. 
 
 [liiL'losurc 7 in No. 47.] 
 
 Earl Granville to General Schenck. 
 
 Foreign Office, London, May 28, 1872. 
 
 Sir : I have to acknowledge the receipt of the letter which you havJ 
 done me the honor to address to me, in reply to my letter of yestenliivj 
 in which I informed you that I had laid before the Cabinet the tekl 
 grapliic disi)ateh from "Slv. Fish, stating the result of the deliberatioii| 
 of tlie Senate on the draught article submitted by the President fortlui; 
 advice. 
 
 As you acquainted me to-dny that you had not received any ropll 
 from Mr. Fish to your communication of my letter, I think it bettor if 
 defer till I hear from you the view taken of my letter by ^Ir. Fish, bt 
 fore replying to the observations contained in your letter. 
 
 I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, yournuKi 
 obedient, humble servant, 
 
 GEANVILLK. 
 
 General K. C. Sciienck. 
 
 
 [luclosiiio H ill No. 47.] 
 
 Earl Granville to General ScJienel: 
 
 Foreign Office, London, Man -'">? '^^''• 
 Sir: I think i^ desirable at once to address to you the following oli| 
 .servations, in addition to what is stated in my letter of yesterday : 
 
 %-,-^-- 
 
ARBITRATION. 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 113 
 
 Ilcr Miijest.v's (■^lOverninoiit proposed :im article on the snggestioii of 
 [10 Aiiu'iuraii (lovcniiiient. 
 
 That article has been ainemled by the Senate. 
 
 Her ^rajesty'sCioveriunent arc not able to lintl for it, a.s amended, any 
 leans or standard of interpretation. 
 
 Tiie words appear to include the wilful misconduct of a neutral as well 
 
 a failure from want of due diligence. 
 
 Tlioy cannot suppose this to be the meaning of the American. Govern- 
 
 lienl. 
 
 Her Majesty's Government hold all the claims made by the United 
 tates for losses which were the direct results of the acts of vessels 
 lentioned in the Treaty, to be claims for " indirect losses as the result 
 
 the failure to observe neutral obligations." 
 
 Her j\Iajesty's Government hold many of the claims for the losses 
 )ove mentioned to be claims for losses which are " remote " as well as 
 liudirect," while "residting from a failure to observe neutral obliga- 
 loiis." 
 
 Her Majesty's Government are unable to signify an assent to a form 
 
 article of which they cannot for themselves discover the scope, and 
 
 |ith respect to which, owing probably to the difticulty of telegraphic 
 
 jmmunication, they have not been apprised of the meaning which the 
 
 [merican Government attaches to it, or of the reasons which have led 
 
 its being proposed. 
 j If the Government of the United States think it desirable to give the 
 fforinatiou which Her Majesty's Government wish to receive on these 
 Bints, and also think that for that purpose some adjournment of the time 
 ' meeting of the Arbitrators of Geneva should take place. Her Majesty's 
 [overnment would be ready to agree to any suitable i)roposal for that 
 jiirpose, which they presume could only be done by a short treaty be- 
 
 reen the two governments. 
 
 I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most 
 
 )odieut, humble servant, 
 
 GRANVILLE. 
 
 General E. C. Sciienck. 
 
 
 'tm 
 iff 
 
 i 
 
 tter bv Mr. Fish, bt 
 
 GHANVJLLK. 
 
 [luclosure in No. 47.] 
 
 General ISchonclx: to Earl Granville. 
 
 Legation of the United Stat-es, 
 
 London, May 28, 1872. 
 I My Lord: I received at 8 o'clock this evening your note of this date, 
 which you say you think it desirable to address to me, as you therein 
 bceed to do, some observations in addition to what is stated in your 
 Itter of yesterday. 
 
 [I shall hasten to-night to communicate the whole of this note by tele- 
 'aph to my Goveriuncnt. 
 
 I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, my Lord, 
 lour Lordship's most obedient servant, 
 
 llOBT. C. SCHENCK. 
 t The Eight Hon. Earl Granville. 
 
 8 G A 
 
 
 
 i 
 
} 
 
 ^P" 
 
 1 Y ^ 
 
 4 ,1 ■ 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 ii|;: 
 
 ' i 
 
 : 1 
 
 4 
 
 *( 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 1, 
 
 1 ' 
 
 * 
 
 s.::m^. 
 
 
 :■&'::■ 
 
 ■■r3.. ji,; ■ , , : 
 
 V. ;..;r 
 
 114 CORRESPONDENCE RESI'ECTIMG GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 No. 48. 
 
 General SchencJc to Mr. Fixh. 
 
 [Ti'lcf^iaiii.] 
 
 London, May 31, 1872. (]{oceived 7.35 u. in, 
 At 1.*.4.') this Mioniiiig Lord (iranville sends mo the following, diitij 
 30tli : 
 
 \TAirl if ranviUe to General Schcncl:] 
 
 "Siu: I am nnable to admit the accuracy of the description whid 
 Mr. Fish has given in tlie telegraphic message which yon have coinniJ 
 nicated to me today of the course which Uer IMajesty's Governiiiei| 
 has pursued, or of the objects which they have had in view. I can 
 attribute such a misunderstanding to the imperfection unavoidallj 
 attendant on negotiations by telegraph, which makes it difficult tJ 
 either party clearly to understand the views and arguments of tlf 
 other. This circumstance seems to strengthen the reason for the siil 
 gestiou which I made in favor of an adjournment of the meeting of tJ 
 Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva. IJer Majesty's Government hai 
 stated their objections to the words proposed by the Senate. I liai 
 already informed you that they did not pretend that the words suggpstJ 
 by themselves were incapable of improvement, and they have re.solvJ 
 to make a suggestion which they trust will meet the views of both Gcj 
 ernments. I proceed therefore to put you in possession of a draii<:l| 
 article, of which I inclose a copy, and which, if adopted by the Goven 
 ment of the United States. Uer Majesty's Government would be prepan 
 to accept : 
 
 "'Whereas the Government of Iler Britannic Majesty luis contend^ 
 in the recent correspondence with the Government of the United Statfj 
 as follows, namely, that such indirect claims as those for the natiocJ 
 losses stated in the Case presented on thei)art of the Government of tlj 
 United States to the Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva, to have licJ 
 sustained by — the loss in the transfer of the American commerciil 
 marine to the British flag, the enhanced payments of insurance, 1 
 prolongation of the war, and the addition of a large sum to the costii 
 war and the suppression of the rebellion — firstly, were not includfj 
 in fact in the Treatj* of Washington ; and further aiul secondly, slioiilj 
 not be admitted in principle as growing out of the acts committed 
 particular vessels alleged to have been enabled to commit depredatioi| 
 upon the shii)ping of a belligerent by reason of such a want of 
 diligence in the performance of neutral obligations as that whiclri 
 imputed by the United States to Great Britain ; and whereas the (!o| 
 erument of the United States has contended that the said claims \vfl| 
 included in the Treaty; and whereas both Governments adopt fort 
 future the principle that claims against neutrals for remote and iudiibj 
 losses should not be admitted as resulting from the act of belligeieiij 
 which such belligerents may have been enabled to commit by reasoiil 
 a want of due diligence on the part of a neutral in the perfonnanoi'ij 
 neutral obligations so far as to declare that this princii)le will heroiitl 
 guide the conduct of both Governments in their relations with w 
 other: now, therefore, in consideration thereof, the President oft 
 United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Seiwi 
 thereof, consents that he will nuike no claim on the part of the Unitfj 
 States before the Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva, in respect of tlj 
 several classes of indirect losses hereinbefore enumerated." 
 
 
 i 
 
ARRITRATION. 
 
 deceived 7.35 a. ui.j 
 tlie following, (latf| 
 
 vl:\ 
 
 :he description wiiicj 
 ich you have coinuia 
 lajesty's Governinei] 
 d in view. I can 
 irfection unavoidalili 
 makes it difiicult 
 nd arguments of tlJ 
 tie reason for the siij 
 of the meeting of til 
 y's Government liaij 
 y the Senate. I hi 
 it the words suggost 
 id they have resolvtl 
 he views of both Goij 
 iSsession of a drau};| 
 loptcd by the Goven 
 ent would be prepan 
 
 lajesty has conteiidfj 
 
 t of the United Statfl 
 
 hose for the natioiii 
 
 he Government of tlj 
 
 leneva, to have bed 
 
 American commcrcii 
 
 ;nts of insurance, 1 
 
 ge sum to the costij 
 
 y, were not incliultj 
 
 and secondly, slioiilj 
 
 e acts committed 
 
 commit depredatioii 
 
 such a want of m 
 
 lis as that which f 
 
 nd whereas the Goi 
 
 the said claims wq 
 
 imeiits adopt fort 
 
 remote and iiuliibl 
 le act of belligerenl 
 commit by reason | 
 M the perforniaiicoij 
 inciple will hereattj 
 relations with m 
 le President of tlJ 
 isent of the Seiiai 
 e part of the Unit([ 
 va, in respect of 
 lerated." 
 
 CORRESPONDKNCn RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 115 
 
 Xo. 49. 
 
 Mr. Fiah to (Jencrnl Sdienek. 
 [Tolegnun— Extriict.] 
 
 Wasiiington, May 31, 1872. 
 
 As stated in a previous disjiatch which you communicated to LFer 
 
 liijesty's Government, unless a treaty be signed and ratified by this 
 
 Joveriiment this day so as to be transmitted to London by to-morrow's 
 
 teauier, for ratification by Her Majesty, it will not be i)ossible that it 
 
 lecome operative in time to be laid before the Arbitrators at Geneva on 
 
 |r)tli June, on which day the existing Treaty recpiires that the arguments 
 
 )e jireseiited. 
 
 Your telegram reached me this morning within thirteen hours of the 
 leparture of the last conveyance by which a copy of a treaty can leave 
 lore to take the steamer of to-morrow. 
 It would be impossible for the Senate, within that time, to consider 
 lie important change proposed of the form and terms in which, after 
 9iig deliberation, they have agreed to advise the rresident to negotiate 
 [lie proposed article. 
 Her Majesty's ministry has already been apprised of this. 
 To i)ropose a change of language involving a change of object and of 
 feet at this late period, is therefore practically to defeat any agreement. 
 Lord Granville admits that the language of the article tirst proposed 
 [y llcr Majesty's Government might be improved. The President 
 links that the same may be said of that now proposed by Lord Gran- 
 Jille ; it ajipears to him to leave a large class of very probable cases 
 jiiprovided for, and he holds that the result of bad faith, or of wilful 
 lisconduct toward either of these two Governments, w ill uever be the 
 |ubject of pecuniary compensation. 
 I have suggested to Sir Edward Thornton that we sign the article as 
 ecoiuiuended by the Senate, and thus put it in operation, and allow the 
 Arbitration to proceed. 
 
 It is not believed that there is any such difference of object between 
 
 he two Governments in the definition and limitation which each desires 
 
 place upon the liability of a neutral, as to prevent an agreement on 
 
 le language in which to express it, if time be allowed for an exchange 
 
 [f views by some other means than the telegraph. 
 
 There is no probability of a practical question on the extent of that 
 labilitv arising immediatelv. 
 
 No. 50. 
 (jcneral Schencl- to Mr. Fish. 
 
 fo. 24(!.] 
 
 Legation of the United States, 
 Lomton, June 1, 1872. (Received June 13.) 
 Sir: I transmit herewith a copy of Lord Granville's note to me of 
 fbe 30tli May, communicating, on the part of Her Majesty's Govern- 
 leiit, another amended draught article, received at 2.45 yesterday morn- 
 ing, and of which, both note and amended article, I sent you the full 
 text by telegraph early the same morning. 
 
 «vti1 
 
l,;^ 
 
 i'v'":; ■■ 
 
 .•'•':.', "> 
 
 '■I ' 
 
 l^-. 
 
 116 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARHITRATION. 
 
 I transmit also a copy of my note to Lord (Iranvillo, aciknowUMlirJnj 
 tlie receipt of tlie above-mentioned eonimunieation, and inforniin<,^ h 
 that I would ijiimediately tele^rapli his note and the new draught to yo 
 and a copy of my note to him sent at midni<,dit hist ni;,'lit, eonveyiii;' 
 liim a copy of your tele;iram of yesterday received at that hour. 
 
 It is now afternoon, and 1 have as yet iieard nothing from His \m\\ 
 ship iji answer, or in rehition, to that teh^gram. 
 
 1 have tlie honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 nOlVL C. SCUKXCK.l 
 Hon. Hamilton Fish, 
 
 ticvretary of State, Wanhittjiton, J). C. 
 
 ♦ ■ ^' 
 
 [lufloMurc 1 ill No. no.] 
 General Schcncli to Earl OranviUe. 
 
 58 Great Cumberland Tlace, Hyde Park, W., 
 
 Friday, 2.45 a. m., May 31, lS7l'. I 
 
 My Lord: I have just beeu called from my bed to receive your iiottl 
 
 dated the 30th, putting me in possession of another form of a draugli 
 
 article which Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to acceiij 
 
 if adopted by the Government of the United States. 
 
 I will hasten to communicate your note aud the draught to Mr. Fisli 1 
 telegraph, so that they aiay reach Washington at the earliest possib 
 hour for consideration there. 
 
 I am, my Lord, with the highest consideratiou, your Lordship's moij 
 obedient servant, 
 
 KOBT. C. SCHENCK, 
 The Eight Honorable the Earl Granville, ttc, cOc, tCr. 
 
 ■mis. 
 
 [Inclostu'c 2 iu No. 50 ] 
 
 General ScJienclc to Earl Granrille. 
 
 58 Great Cumberland Place, 
 
 May 31, 1S71J, midnifjhtA 
 My Lord: I have just received from Mr. Pish a telegraphic dispattlij 
 of which I hasten to communicate you the inclosed copy. 
 
 I have the honor to be, my Lord, with the highest consideration, yoic 
 Lordship's most obedient servant, 
 
 EOBT. C. SCHENCK, 
 The Eight Honorable the Earl Granville, Iv. CJ., tCc, il-c, d'c. 
 
 ■ 'fV 
 
 ■ ■ f . 
 
 ' • 
 
 V ';i 
 
 ■i. 
 
 
 : " '" 1 
 
 
 ii : 
 
 %i 
 
 Xo. 51. 
 
 Mr. Fifth to General jScheuck. 
 
 [Telegram.] 
 
 Wanhinyton, Jane 1, 1871'.^ 
 
 The fifth article of the Ticaty requires the written aguments to 
 presented by the 15th June. 
 
RHITRATION. 
 
 COKRESPONDEXCK RKSPF.CTIN'G GKNEVA ARItlTRATION. 117 
 
 your Lordship's moa 
 
 \)H, June 1, 1872. 
 
 Tlif lul.joiiriiiiKMit of tlu< Trilmnal without iimcnditijj that artido 
 foiild, lis \vc arc advised, lu'actically amount to a discontiuiuiuce, and 
 |i;it luticlt' can lt(^ anicinU'd only l)y a new treaty. 
 
 Tlic (tpinion attril)utc'd to ino rcyardin^i;- the Senate artieh' is very 
 jconci'tly represented. 
 
 No. r.L'. 
 
 (It iicntl ^cluiu V lo .]fr. Fhh, 
 [Telcf>niiu.] 
 
 LoxD()>', June 1, 1S7J. (Iteceived 3.30 i). ni.) 
 
 V(Mir tele;irani of yester(hiy was re(reived at niidniylit, and imnie- 
 iitely coniiunnieate*! to Lord (iranville, who iias just sent me an answer 
 lollitus: 
 
 [Eavl GnmiuUe to General Schencli.] 
 
 "Sru: In reply to the conuaunication which 1 received troni you this 
 loriiiii;;', I bey to inlorni you that ller Majesty's CJoveruinent hold that 
 
 tlie article adopted by the Senate, cases of bad faith and willful mis- 
 ^iiduct are brought within the scope of the proposed agreement, which 
 L'als with pecuniary compensation. It appears to be the view of the 
 [overnment of the United States that such cases are not a fit subject of 
 pcuniary com])ensation, and I am informed by sir Edward Thornton 
 jiat ^Ir. Fish is of opinion that the article adopted by the Senate is 
 jpnblc of improvement. The President thinks tluit the article last ■ 
 roposed by Iler Majesty's Government is also capable of improvement. 
 Jie American Government state that ' it is not believed that there is 
 ly such difference of object between the two Governments in the deti- 
 [tiou and limitation which each desires to place u]>on the liability of a 
 putral as to prevent an agreement on the language in which to express 
 I if time be allowed for the exchange of views by some other means 
 Jian the telegraph.' The British Government must decline to sign a 
 Jcaty which is not in conformity with their views, and which does not 
 jpross the principles which the American Government believes to be 
 itertaiaed by both parties to the negotiation, and which, immediately 
 [tor being signed, wonld become the subject of negotiation with a view 
 
 its alteration. In this position they repeat their readiness to extend 
 ^e time allowed for the Arbitrators to meet at Geneva, and they have, 
 
 you are aware, provided Sir Edward Thornton with full powers to 
 |}iu a treaty for this purpose, or they are willing to concur in a joint 
 ^plication to the Tribunal of Arbitration at once to adjourn the pro- 
 codings of the Arbitration, which they are advised it is within the com- 
 Kouoo of the Arbitrators to do upon such an application witliout afresh 
 lout \." 
 
 Xo. 53. 
 
 Mi: Fish to General f<cJt(ncJi. 
 
 r Telegram.] 
 
 ^VASIII^'GTON, June 2, 1872. 
 
 Although by a literal construction of the Senate article, cases of bad 
 kith or wilful misconduct may be held to be withiu its scope, it is in- 
 
 ^i 
 "•*' 
 
 ..| V'7tM?: 
 
m 
 
 '■; ', ' ■' 
 
 mr:.' 
 
 
 •*•";■ 
 
 118 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 conceivable that such cases can ever be the subject of cli{)lomatic com I 
 spondence with a view to pecuniary compensation between two l*owersj 
 such as those now concerned. 
 
 i:.-^-.?: 
 
 iMv:-' 
 
 ■ •• -; t'- 
 
 v'-'i- 
 
 ■^ ■•;>;:'^' 
 
 
 No. 54. 
 
 (lenerul Schencl- to Mr. Fish. 
 [Telegram.] 
 
 London, Jimc 2, 1872. (Received 1.20 o'clock. 
 
 Your telefcram of yesterday just received. I will communicate ittol 
 Lord Granville to-morrow. Must I say it is final ? They hold here tliail 
 after the Arbitrators have received the arguments from the Agents ool 
 the 15th they may adjourn for a time, and would doubtless do so ( 
 joint request of the two Governments ; that the power to adjourn is in I 
 cident to the character of the Tribunal, reference being had only to tlif| 
 seventh article of the Treaty, which requires a decision to be made, i 
 possible, in three months. In this view I certainly coucur, but have noil 
 expressed my opinion to any one. If the ministry were to enter intol 
 any such arrangement, putting in their argument and trusting to tliJ 
 chance of negotiating a supplementary article afterwards, they raiistj 
 expect denunciation in P.irliament; but that would be their concernl 
 not ours. I heard from Davis last week that our argument' would kl 
 ready by the 15th, and Lord Granville told me theirs would be. 
 
 No. 55. 
 
 rs:^f.:v;?;. 
 
 I- 
 
 "- 
 
 
 h. 
 
 '■•"•"t' 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 s .. . 
 
 ■ V"' 
 
 m 
 
 [:•■ :»' 
 
 Mr. Fish to General Scluncl: 
 [Telograiii.] 
 
 Washington, June 2, 1872. 
 
 Coniidential. We concur in the opinion that the Arbitrators havetliJ 
 power to adjourn either on tlieir own motion or on the motion of eitlifl| 
 party. 
 
 If the arguments be put in on both sides on lith, and Groat r.ritaiii| 
 move for an adjournment, tliis Government will concur. 
 
 2s(». 5(J. 
 
 OeneraJ i<vh('ncl< to Mr, Fimh. 
 [Telegram.] 
 
 London, Jnne 3, 1S72. (Received 11.25 j). in.i 
 
 I found tliis morning I had partly misunderstood Lord Granville, 
 ller ^Majesty's Government are oi" opinion that the Arl)itrators iiui<; 
 meet on tlie 15th, but that It is not lu'cessary for the agents to i)resiii'| 
 
 i•r^ 
 
RBITRATION. 
 
 lived 1.20 o'clock.) 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 119 
 
 hio arji'iuiicnts at that time. Sncli delivery of arguments tliey think 
 
 fiiay, by joint agreement, be postponed. Tbis conclusion was under 
 
 .i(l\ loo of Sir Eonndell Palmer. I asked Lord Granville if be would 
 
 Consider tbis point again wben in Cabinet to-day, and tell me how they 
 
 lioiij;lit the parties could proceed under the fifth article without such 
 
 llolivery of arguments. It seemed to me that the Arbitrators need not 
 
 lieccssarily assemble then any more than they did to receive the counter 
 
 pases. Perhaps, however, the parties might, by mutual agreement, 
 
 raive the presentation of arguments at that date, being a matter which 
 
 Related not to the Arbitrators, but to a duty to be iierformed by their 
 
 )\vii agents. 
 
 Jle has just sent me the following communication : 
 
 \ Earl Granville to General 8ohenc1c.\ 
 
 '' Sill : In reply to the question which you put to me this morning, I 
 
 nave to state to you that Her jMajesty's Government consider that the 
 
 irbitrators must no doubt meet on tlie latbof June, but the fifth article 
 
 k tlie Treaty, though it contemplates the delivery of written arguments 
 
 ^11 that day, does not make the further prosecution of the arbitration 
 
 Impossible, if on that day neither parti/ presents any written argument. 
 
 Che Arbitrators have full power to adjourn, aiul they have also full 
 
 |)o\ver to call, after tlie 15th, for any further statements or arguments, 
 
 rritten or oral, from time to time as they may think lit. If, therefore, 
 
 both parties agree not to present any argument till a later day than the 
 
 btb, requesting the Arbitrators to adjourn, and if the Arbitrators 
 
 [liould, on any day to which they may have ad.journed, accept the argu- 
 
 leiit which both parties may then wish to tender to them, this will be 
 
 jiiite witliin their power." 
 
 I 
 < 
 
 I- 
 
 i 
 
 ii-K>^''\^ 
 
 No. .")7. 
 Mr. Fish to General ^Schencl'. 
 
 1, and (^ircat P.ritniJ 
 
 21(5.] Dkpaiitjient of State, 
 
 Wanhington, June 3, 1S72. 
 Sir: Your dispatch Xo. 233 of the ISth ultimo, inclosing copy of 
 liiliplement to the London Gazette of the day previous, has been received. 
 I^liis copy of the Gazette brings to the Department tlie first noticeithas 
 
 adof 10 111 Granville's note of the I3tb ultimo, which ])rol)ably appeared 
 III i>riiit. submitted to the Pritish public, long befon^ it reached Sir 
 ^Mlward Tbornton, to whom it purports to be addressed. 
 Tilt' avowed i>urpose of Earl Granville's note is to notify Sir Edward 
 
 iHiriitoii tliat ii-.'r ^Majesty's Government liave reliaini'd from continu- 
 
 i;;''aii argumentative discussion with the (roveniment of the United 
 States, upon the scope and intention of tli<> articles in the Treaty of 
 ^Vasjiiiigtoii, relating to the Arbitration on the 'Alabama claims;'" and 
 io]tiit liiiiiiii ])ossession of the viewsof tbat Governiiient, with reference 
 iti solium jiassages which occur in my note to you of the Kith of Ajjril. 
 [)!' course it will not be assuined tbat the object of its publication in 
 
 ii'cat Uritiaii, in advance of its possible receipt by the gentleman for 
 Kviiose instruction it was written, bad any connection with tbe inliuenc- 
 \\\<^ of ])iiblic opinion in I^urope, or near tbe expected scene of the Ge- 
 lii'va Tribunal. 
 
 '"Ill 
 

 l^h;-f-;^''':' 
 
 
 t.. 
 
 
 ..!'■ " 
 
 
 120 CORRESPONDENCE RESrECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 It never was the desire of tliis Goveriiinent to open, much lesst 
 proloii;;", (liscuNsion witli Jler Majesty's (loveriiiiiciit upon the scope aiii;| 
 intention of the articles in the Treaty of Wasliiiif;ton relatiufj to tlie Ar 
 tration on tlie Ahibama <'hiinis. The (lovernnient of the Unitd StiitfJ 
 lioped, as itliad reason to believe, that before the anj^ust Tribunal, appointj 
 ed in a<!Cordance v ith the terms of the Treaty of AVashins'tou to "exaiiiiii| 
 and decide" upon the matters in dispute between the United States aiij 
 llreatUritian, and designate<l as the "Alabama claims," tlieTreatywduli] 
 be its own interpreter, llestinj;' upon this mofit reasonable convictid 
 it has been the earnest wish of the President (a Avish often exprcssfil 
 in the corresjiondence of this l)e])artment on the subject) to remit all 
 discussion as to the s(;ope and meanin{>- of the Treaty to that Tribuiiiilf 
 Had this feeling been recij)rocated by ller JMajesty's Government, tlij 
 discussion which has occurred between the two Governments upon tli| 
 true meaning of the Treaty might have been in a great measure avoidtd 
 Upon the present point of contention between this Government and tkl 
 of Great Britain, namely, whether the claims for " national losses" poiml 
 larly denominated " indirect damages," are, by the terms of the Treiitjf 
 fairly within the province for the consideration and decision of tli| 
 Geneva Tribunal, the United States it is believed will lose nothing! 
 the fullest discussion of the cpiestion. 
 
 In my note to you of the 10th of April, I had occasion to say, "It il 
 diflicult to reconcile the elaborate line of argument put forward by Earl 
 Granville to show a waiver of claims for indirect losses, with the idel 
 that at the outset of the negotiations ITer Majesty's Government did uoi 
 consider the matter of public or national injuries as the basis of an ouij 
 standing claim against Great Britain, on the part of the United States,] 
 His Lordship's instruction of the 13th ultimo, now before me, doesiioj 
 serve to lessen, much less to remove, the dilliculty thus suggested, ij 
 this instruction Earl Granville, with great skill and ingenuity, recajiittj 
 lates the previous arguments on the question, and arranges, witliitj 
 tinite care, the facts upon which he desires that the propositions aii| 
 vaneed by ller Majesty's Government should rest. Passing over, 
 certain tone of criticism, which may with propriety be ascribed to tliJ 
 pressure t»f public business upon his Lordship at the present moment,.} 
 jiroceed to notice some statements in his Lordship's note, from which 1 
 draws inferences in my opinion wholly unwarranted by the. prenii.^iJ 
 1 do this that you may be put in possession, not only of all new facts oJ 
 the subject, but also of the views of this Government, in order thatyof 
 may be able to make such use of them in your future intercourse on tli!| 
 subject with ller IMaJesty's (lovernment as the occasion may deiniiin'l 
 
 Si)eaking of the allusion in my instruction of the lOth of A]>nl t 
 Earl Bussell's dis]iatch of ]\Iarch 1'7, J.S().'5, to Lord Lyons, J<]arl (riiu. 
 ville says: "Sir. Fish omits the wonls'of which the Confederate loiiiii' 
 an additional i)roof;' which, taken with tlu' context, show that Mr. AdaiiiJ 
 was then sjjeaking not of the case of the 'Alabama,' but of the ii,ssij;| 
 ance in nunu'y an»i materials, Avhich he consid(>red was imjiroperly m| 
 dered to the Coni'ederate Slates by blockade-running and the cotton loaii,! 
 Jt is true that tho.ve words weve omitted; there was no reason wiiy tlitf 
 .should have been (luoted; they refer to .some other and additional i)i('i| 
 of the conspiracy which Mr. Adams was ])ointing out, as tendiii;;! 
 bring on a war with a view to aid the Confederate cause. ]\ry olijwj 
 was not to fortify what ]\li'. Adams had said, but to show that he lii'.i 
 notilied to (Jreat JJritain that her conduct was aiding the Confedeia!] 
 cause; with or without the omitte<l words the i'xtract establi.shes 
 notice. The cumulative evidence which they all'ord of the conspiiwl 
 
 Liven. 
 
 |wj:iiii 
 
ARI5ITKATI0N. 
 
 COKRESPONDENCH RESPIX'TING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 121 
 
 () open, imic'h IcsstJ 
 it n[)oii the scope auj 
 11 relating? to tlie Arb 
 t of the Uiiitd Statfl 
 ;ust Tribunal, appoiiiif 
 ishinston to "exaiuiiJ 
 Ik' Uiiitetl States aiiil 
 ins,'' tlu'.Treaty woulJ 
 easonable convictiocj 
 Avisli often expicssJ 
 e subject) to remit al] 
 aty to that Tribuiml 
 ty's Goveninieiit, tliJ 
 oveiiiments upon tliJ 
 i-eat measure avoi(14 
 tioverniueut and tlial 
 national losses" poinil 
 i terms of the Trt'iiW 
 and decision of tli| 
 I will lose nothing 1 
 
 C'casion to say, " It 
 t put forward by Earl 
 t losses, Avitli the idcl 
 s Government did noi 
 as the basis of an oufl 
 of the United States, 
 w before nie, does ivi 
 ' thus sug^gested. iJ 
 d ingenuity, recapitiil 
 id arranges, AvitlikJ 
 the pi'opositions 
 est. Passing over; 
 be as(;ribed to tliJ 
 le i)resent moment, :[ 
 note, from which 1 
 ed by the prciiii«'J 
 y of all new facts ol 
 it, in order thatyoj 
 re intercourse on tliii 
 casion niav deiiiaini 
 le IGtli of Ainil 
 d Lyons, J<]arl (rnii.| 
 le Confederate loiiui' 
 how thatMr.AdanJ 
 iia,' but of the assisi 
 was improperly leiif 
 and the cotton loan] 
 s no reason why tlRi 
 and additional \m\ 
 g out, as teiidiii^M 
 ;e cause. ^\y olt,ioi| 
 o show that he liil 
 ling the Coufe(l(.'ia:| 
 ract establishes 
 rd of the conspiiac] 
 
 Itliiit 3lr. Adams notified to Lord IJussell is uiiiiiipoitant to the notice 
 loivon. The suggestion of the omission seems to be an ingenious avoid- 
 irnice of a material issue in the case by raising another of no possible 
 Isigiiiiicance. 
 
 JUit in this connection it is dilticult to imagine by what ]>rocess of 
 'divination Lord Granville assumes that 3Ir. Adams was speaking with 
 (rtlerciu'e to blockade-running, wlii(;h is not even alluded to in Lord 
 ljiu.s.seirs note, and seems to be an interpolation wholly nnsustaiiied by 
 jtlio narrative of Lord liussell, whosi^ general amiability of character 
 land friendship for the United States have never yet subjected him to 
 jtlie suspicion of withholding anything that iiiigiit be used to their dis- 
 liidvantage or di '.redit. A perusal of Lord ItiisselFs note (which is 
 Lppended licreto, coi>ied from the British IJlue Look, 2sorth America, 
 |>o. 1,18(14, p. U) shows the main object of the interview which Mr. 
 lAdainshad sought with Lord liussell to have been the i>resentation of 
 la (lisi)atch of Mr. Seward, complaining of the '.'.tting out and the depreda- 
 Itions of the "Alabama" and the '' Oreto,"and other cruisers, to which the 
 Iconversation was mainly contined. These things Mr. Adams thought 
 anade manifest a consi)iracy, of which the " Confederate loan was an 
 ladditional proof," i'l'd lie tlius brought the existence of a consiiiracy 
 with a view to prolonging the war to the notice of the IJritish Govern- 
 Jiient. 
 
 I ap])eal to Lord llussell's note to determine whether, as I supposed, 
 land as Lord Granville denies, J\h'. Adams referred to the " Alabama" 
 las among tli'3 causes tending to produce the exasperation which might 
 llead to a war " with the view to aid the Confederate cause," an<l whether, 
 las Lord Granville asserts, and I doubt, ^Ir. Adams Avas speaking of 
 |>' blockade-running." 
 
 If (as 1 think that Lord Itussell's note establishes) the "Alabama" 
 land other cruisers were the subject of the conversation, there was no occa- 
 Isiou on my part to adduce the Confederate loan as "additional proof.'' 
 JTlie fact tliat it is mentioned as " additional proof" shows that it was not 
 Itlie main proof of which JVIr. Adams had been speaking. Lord Gran- 
 Ivillc has unhappily misconceived the subject which formed the leading 
 (topic of the interview between ]\h'. Adams and Lord liussell. 
 
 The depredations of the cruisers alioat, tlie continued building of ships 
 jfor the Confederates in British i)orts, the manning those shijis with 
 Ijjiitish sailors, and the unconcealed desire on the part of the cons[>ira- 
 Itors for the success of the Confederates, and for a monopoly of the tradt! 
 jof the Southern States: this, in the estimation of Mr. Adams, was the 
 lovidence of the existence of the conspiracy of which the Confederate 
 |loan was incidentally referred to as " additional proof." 
 
 Larl Granville mentions that the dispatch of the 14th of February, 
 
 JlSliO, and that of I'd May, LS(i7, both from Mr. Seward to Air. Adams, 
 
 (were neither of them cominnnicated to ller ^Majesty's (Joveriinu'iit. If 
 
 jliis Lordship means that these notes were not oiiicially communicated to 
 
 (ills Government ut the time of their dote, he is unquestionably right, 
 
 Ibiit then Ik; controverts wiiat was not alleged. 1 had sai<l " the ol'licial 
 
 Icoirespondetice of this Government whicl was ])ublishe(l and is within 
 
 jtlie knowledge of ller .Majesty's Government;" this Lord (Jiaiiville does 
 
 liiot deny, and this 1 re-assert. A volume containing' the notes referred 
 
 t(i was placed in the possession of the IJritish .loiiit Commissioners, and 
 
 [was again formally (lelivered to the agent of ller Majesty, at Geneva, 
 
 ill December last. Lord (iiaiiville himself more than once (piotes from 
 
 jit. thus establishing what 1 have asserted, that tin* contents of that 
 
 VdUiiiM- weie within the knowledge of ller .Maji'sty's Government. 
 

 .,1 
 
 : • 
 
 ■ ' ■ < 
 
 !.''■! ; 
 
 . > 
 
 'mm-o' 
 
 [I ^i- 
 
 122 (CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 Lord (iranville refers to a disi)atcb to Mr. Seward, dated 17th Febj 
 ruary, 18(5!), in \viiicli Mr. Keverdy Johnson reviews the objections I 
 made in the United States to the convention iiegfotiated by him. His 
 Lordship makes a long extract from this dispatch, referring to " jvage 
 707 "as that on which it appears. The two dispatches which lie liadl 
 intimated had not been communicated to Her Majesty's Government, 
 appear in tije same vohime from which he tlius <inotes, the one at page| 
 028, the other at page G7;J. 
 
 At the coiichision of this extract, his Lordship proceeds: ''If 3Ii.| 
 Johnson was mistaken in the view thus decidedly expressed, it might 
 be expected that some notice would have been taken of so important | 
 nn error." 
 
 When it is remembered that the convention of which Mr. Johnson I 
 was then speaking, and in the negotiation of ^i■hich he had acted so 
 prominent a part., was rejected by the Senate of the United States, a oraiidi [ 
 of the treaty-making power of this Government, it can scarcely be said, 
 even with plausibility, that Mr. Johnson's expression of his own views,! 
 in the dispatcii from which Eai'l Granville (piotes so liberally, was .allowed 
 to pass unnoticed by this Government. The vote of the Senate is uu| 
 derstood to have shown only one member who, from Avhatever can* 
 approved Mr. Keverdy Johnson's Treaty. Tlie inference may be I'airlyl 
 drawn that no other Senator shared Mr. Johnson's views. 
 
 The opinion obtained somewhat extensively, in this country at least,. 
 that the Senate of the United States did take a somewhat decided noticti 
 of the Treaty, and that in rejecting the Treaty itself, as the Senate did, 
 it swept away all the reasoning and argument in its defense, whidi| 
 thenceforth needed no further notice. But however this may be, the dis 
 patch wliich Earl Granville quotes establishes the fact that, at its date,| 
 the claims which Her Majesty's Government employs ]\[r. Johnson's dis 
 I)atch to controvert had been advanced. Historically, therefore, tlievl 
 were then known. The date of this dispatch is more than two years 
 before the meeting of the Joint High Commission. '1 le citation of tliisl 
 dispatch by Her Majesty's (rovernment would seenr lo bring to it 
 knowledge of the existence of these claims anterior to the meeting of tliel 
 Joint High Commission, although we have elsewhere been told that their j 
 presentation to that Commission was a surprise. 
 
 Soon after the reception of this dispatch of Mr. Johnson's by his Gov 
 eminent, he ceased to be its rei)resentative at the Court of St. Jaiiie.'?. 
 Those wlu) know Mr. Johnson's social and genial qualities Avill ]u)t iii'| 
 surprised to find that Lord Granville, not content with citing his oflieial 
 dispatch in explanation of the conversation, proceeds to cite in defonsej 
 of the IJritish side of the (jueslion, a professional letter of Mr. Johnson, 
 written several months al'ter his relirenuMit from ])ublic life. 
 
 In an instruction from this l)ej)artment to Mv. Motley, (Mr, Johnson's I 
 successor as the representative of this Government,) dated IMayl."). 1S()!I.| 
 informing him of the then recent action of the Senate of the United Sates, 
 on what was familiarly known as the "Johnson-ChP'emlon Treaty,"' tlie| 
 viewsof this Government are thusexprcssed in reli<t;<»ntotheclainis(»l'tlii' 
 United States a,gainst the Jjritish<iovern men t: " Upon one ])oint the Pres- 
 ident and the Senate and tlie ovcM'whelming mass of the iieojtle arc eon 
 vinced, namely: That the Convention, from its eharacter and terms, m 
 from the time of its negotiation, or from tlie <'ircumstances atteiMliiii.i 
 its nen'otiation, would not have removed the sense of existing gricv 
 ance, would not have atforded real substantial satisfaction to the peo- 
 ple, Would not Imve proved a hearty, cordial settlement of peii(liii;;| 
 
RBITRATION. 
 
 rd, dated ITtli Fob. 
 iews the objections I 
 itiated by bim. His 
 , vet'errinff to "i)age 
 tches which lie liadi 
 jesty's Governnipiit, 
 tes, the one at i»aj,'e| 
 
 I proceeds : '' If ^h. 
 expressed, it iniglitl 
 ken of so important | 
 
 whicli Mr. Johnson I 
 ch he had acted sol 
 lited States, a braiieb I 
 3au scarcely be said, 
 )U of bis owu views, 
 berally,was allowod 
 )f the (Senate is im| 
 )ni whatever cause, 
 'rence may be lairlyl 
 views, 
 his country at least,! 
 iwhat decided notice I 
 f, as the Senate did,! 
 1 its defense, wLidij 
 this may be, the Uis I 
 ['act that, at its date,| 
 s ■Mr. Johnson's dis 
 ally, therefore, tliov] 
 )r(' than two years | 
 
 T le citation of this 
 to bring to it a I 
 the meeting of the 
 
 been told that tlioir 
 
 n 
 
 >hnson's by his Gov 
 'Oiirt of St. Jaine.«,| 
 lalities will not ItH 
 til citing hisolliciiil 
 s to cite in defoiiMi 
 ter of Mr. Johnson, 
 )li(! life. 
 
 Mev, (Mr, Johnson's 
 dated May 1."). lSli',1, 
 )f the United Sates. 
 endon Treaty,"' tliol 
 itotheclaimsol'tlii'l 
 « ()ne]»ointthel*ros- 
 the ]>eople are con 
 leter and terms, oil 
 (stances atleiidini;! 
 of existing gricv- 
 iction to the iteiv 
 ement of pending; I 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 123 
 
 jiiostions, but would have left a feeling of dissatisfaction, inconsistent 
 kvitli the relations which the President desires to have firmly estab- 
 ii.slicd between two great nations of common origin, common language, 
 common literature, common interests and objects in the advancement of 
 tlip civilization of the age.'' 
 
 The action of the United States Senate, as above shown, and the 
 expression Just quoted from my dispatch ol May 15, 18(»I), to Mr. Mot- 
 ley, furnish a correct history of the attitude of the Government of the 
 I'liited States in relation to the whole subject, at a time contemporane- 
 >ns with the expression of ]Mr. Johnson upon which Earl Granville 
 blaces so much reliance. The support which Her ^Majesty's Govern- 
 Snoiit can derive from Mr. Johnson's dispatch seems to nie very 
 slender. 
 
 To show that the United States continued to maintain this posi- 
 tion in relation to the claims, it may not be out of place to call your 
 ittention to the language of my instruction to Mr. Motlej' of Septein- 
 [l)er 2"), 1S()!>, in which occurs the following expression of the views 
 then entertained by this Government : "The President is not yet pre- 
 |))ared to pronounce on the question of indemnities which he thinks due 
 by Great Dritain to individual citizens of the United States, for the 
 jdestruction of their proi>erty by rebel cruisers fitted out in the ports of 
 [heat liritain. Nor is he now prepared to speak of the reparation 
 Iwliicli he thinks due by the British Government for the larger .account 
 )f the vast national injuries it has iniiicted on the United States, l^ov 
 kloo.s he attemi>t now to measure the relative effect of the various 
 I'anses of injury, as whether by untimely recognition of belligerency, 
 !l)y suffering the fitting out of rebel cruisers, or by the supply of ships, 
 [firms, and munitions of war to the Confederates, or otherwise in what- 
 Lwernianner. * * * All these are subjects of future con.sideration, which, 
 [when the time for action shall arrive, the President will consider," &c. 
 [t seems strange that this language should have failed to make evident 
 the existence of a serious complaint on the part of this Government on 
 icconnt of the national losses and injuries, consequent upon the in- 
 [•reased rates of insurance, the transfer of the merchant marine of the 
 llTnited States to Great ]Jritain, and the increased expenditure caused 
 jby the ]>rolongation of the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 
 
 Tliat the idea of a claim on the part of the United States for indi- 
 Irect damages for national losses was even then neither new nor 
 lohsoure in the minds of eminent IJritish statesmen, I lu'ed but refer 
 las'aiu to the opinions ex])res.sed by Lord (Jairns and Professor liernard, 
 |(lit()t('d in my note of the l(!lh of April. I see no reason to qualify 
 Iwiiat 1 tlieu found occasion to say: "At every stage, theriMore, of the 
 |]tr()ce(Mliiigs, from November, ISIL', when iMr. Adams '.solicited redress 
 [for the national injuries sustained,' to th(\ date of the Treaty, this (iov- 
 |cniiiu'nt has kept before tiiat of (h-eat IJritain her assertion of the lia- 
 l)i]ity of the latter for wliat are now termed the indirect injuries" 
 ll'lavl (^iranville surely cann<»t dismiss the uninterruiited and consistent 
 Jasscrtion of the claims of the United Srates against Great IJrilain for 
 national los.ses sulfered by the former, in ('onse((uence of a disregard of 
 jnatiu;);:! obligations by the latter. 
 
 It remains to notice one otiier i)assage in the dispatch of Earl Gran- 
 
 Ivilh', alluding to my reference, iu the not(^ ol tiie KJth of \\n\\, to the 
 
 IwoiU (tf Professor liernard. llis Lordship says: "Still less can they 
 
 (I lor .Ala jesty's Governiuent) admit that because ^Ir. lUniiard, in the 
 
 lltli cliapter of bis work, gave certain extracts from 3[r. Fish's dis- 
 
 htatcli. under the head ot 'Alabama claims,' that dispatch hecame the 
 
 S 
 
 ^ ■■! 
 
 m 
 
 i-n 
 
!^ V"]- . 
 
 v^^'' 
 
 
 ..H::;»' -• 
 
 
 f'-' Iv'-'^'T ' • 
 
 
 ?t.::H: -' 
 
 U' 
 
 ^i 
 
 124 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 staiulanl by which the churns known as Ahibama chiiins were tobo| 
 nien.su led.'' 
 
 Here ayain his Loidsliij) rei)els Avhat was not i)ioi)ose(l. yiv. JJernanll 
 was quoted to show that Jler .Majesty's Goveinuient entered upon the 
 negotiation oftlie Ahiharna question with a knowh'dge of the existence 
 of tlie chiinis of the United States for indiiectt h)sses. Tlieie was no 
 suggestion that the dispatch which Mv. IJernard (|uoted was to hoa| 
 standard of measure, but that tlie fact of (pioting by Mv. BernanJ sliowed 
 knowledge on liis i>art of the existence and nature of <;hiinis wliich elsol 
 where was denied. His Lordsliip tlien proceeds: " It liappens, more- 
 over, that in the extracts given by 3Ir. Bernard, in the eliapter to wlii(li| 
 Mr. Fish refers, tlie three passages cited by Mv, Fish in his present dis- 
 patch as relating to indirect injuries and national losses are omitted." 
 
 1 am bound to suppose that the repeated ai)parent denial of what was I 
 nf>t a.sserted is the result or consequence of the haste in which his Lord 
 ship's note was given to the press. In mj' dispatch to you I had not! 
 said that the passages cited by me were among the « itracts given by 
 Mv. Bernard "in the chapter" to which I rel'erred. ]\[y language Mas.! 
 '* in this icorh he summarizes an iu,struction,"&c. I have, therefore, to 
 repeat what I said, namely, that the passages cited by me appear in 
 Trofessor Bernard's work ; and I must direct your attention to the fact 
 that, while Lord Granville denies (what was not as.serted) that these | 
 passages do not appear in a certain chapter, he does not deny (what- 
 ever may be the impression casually produced by his language) what 1 1 
 asserted, iiamelj', that the pas.sages do appear in Professor Bernard's [ 
 w 01 k. I refer to pages 492 and 493, where they will be found. 
 
 Beferring to a former dispatch of mine, Lord Granville thinks that it i.s I 
 apparent that the " vast national injuries" presented in it are ascribed 
 to other causes than the acts committed by the Confederate cruisers, aud 
 among other extracts from the dispatches he quotes me as saying, " iioi 
 does he (the President) attempt now to measure the relative effect of 
 the various causes of injury, as whether by untimely recognition of 
 belligerency, by suffering the lifting out of rebel cruisers, or by tbe| 
 supply of ships, arms, and munitions of war to the confederates, or other- 
 Avise in whatever manner." With regard to the interview of Mr. Adams I 
 with Lord Bussell, in iMarch, 18G3, the statement by the latter that tlie 
 former had referred to the Confederate loan as "iidditional proofof 
 what Mv. Adams had alleged to exist, has been advanced to prove that] 
 Mr. Adams was not speaking pf the subject which he sought the inter- 
 view to discuss, but of something of which neither he nor Lord llussell] 
 made any mention. Here the argument appears to be of the samel 
 nature, that because some "additional" causes of complaint other tliiiul 
 those put forward before the Joint Uigh Commission, and b; ore the 
 Arbitrators at Geneva, have been advanced in some correspondence on 
 the part of this Government, that a certain class of claims are iiot| 
 included under the head of "Alabama claims." 
 
 Lord Granville says, " Mr. Fish gives as a rea.son for no claims for 
 national losses having been 'delined' or 'formulated', tliat Lord liussell| 
 objected in July, LSUy, to any claims being put forward." 
 
 A reference to my di.spatch to you of the Kith of April last sln)\v.<| 
 me a.s giving a dilTerent reason. I .said, " During the war the.se claims 
 Avere cold inually arisingand increasing, and could not then be detined, ami I 
 the time for formulating them would notarise until a willingness to enter 
 upon their consideration arose." Lord liusKell's objections were men- 
 tioned, it is true, in addition to the reason above <pioted, but althoiigii] 
 " a«lditiunal,"' thev are not therefore exclusive. 
 
LBITRATION. 
 
 CORRESPONDEXCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARHITRATION, 125 
 
 claims were to bo 
 
 ised. jSIv. JJernanl 
 t entered upon tlit 
 Ifje of the existeiiw 
 se>s. There was no 
 I noted was to he a 
 Ur. Beriiiird showed! 
 fehiitn.s which else- 
 " It liiippeiis, nioio- 
 he chapter to which] 
 ii in his present di,s| 
 losses are omitted' 
 t denial of what was] 
 i in which his Lonl 
 h t'> you I had not I 
 le » <tracts given by 
 My language was, 
 ; have, therefore, tu 
 ;}d by nie appear in 
 ittention to the fact 
 asserted) that these | 
 »e8 not deny (what- 
 is language) what 1 1 
 Professor Bernard's; | 
 il be found, 
 ville thinks that it is I 
 hI in it are ascribed 
 3derate cruisers, aud 
 me as saying, " uoi 
 e relative ettectoti 
 Liely recognition of 
 [cruisers, or by tbe| 
 ifederates, or other- 
 view of Mr. Adams I 
 the latter that the 
 additional in'oof'of 
 meed to prove that | 
 lie sought the inter- 
 lie nor Lord llussell | 
 to be of the same 
 luplaint other tliuui 
 ion, and b? \)ro the 
 correspondence on I 
 of claims arc not! 
 
 for no claims ftn' 
 I, that Lord llussell 
 Ird." 
 
 April last shows] 
 le war these claims 
 jhenbedeiined,aiid| 
 Iwillingness to enter ] 
 Ijections were men] 
 |)ted, but altlious'i 
 
 Tlie comnuuiications which the British High (Commissioners may have 
 linade to their Government, either pending the negotiation or since, can 
 scarcely be urged with seriousness upon tliis Government for acceptance 
 in tlie construction of the Treaty. One of those gentlemen is reported 
 !is saying recently " that we, the (British) Commissioners, were distinctly 
 resi)onsible for having represented to the Government that we (they) 
 understood a jn-omise to be given that these claims were not to be put 
 forward, and were not to bo submitted to arbitration." lie does not say 
 by whom, on what occasion, or in what manner, such promise was made, 
 lie involves all his colleagues in the representation made to their Gov- 
 ernment, that such promise had been made. But this seeking 'aliundCn' 
 outside of the Treaty and of the Proto(!ol, to establish a meaning or to 
 [explain its terms, has had the ettect, which the honorable baronet who 
 jniade the declaration anticipated, to raise " a personal qnestion," and 1 
 Icannot allow this reference made bj^ Lord Granville to the information 
 Ifurnished to Uer Majesty's Government by Her Higli Commissioners to 
 Ipass without alluding to the representation which SirStatford Northcote 
 |(one of those Commissioners) says that the Commissioners are respon- 
 Isible for having made to their Government. 
 
 In justice to myself and my colleagues on the American side of the 
 ICoiuniission, I must take this occasion (the first that has presented 
 litself since I have seen the speech of Sir Stafford Northcote) to saj- 
 Itbat no such promise as he states that the British Commissioners repre- 
 Iseuted to their Government, as having been understood by them to be 
 Imatle by the American Commissioners, was in ftict ever made. Tiie 
 lollicial connnunications between the American and the British Commis- 
 sioners (as you are aware) were all made by or to me as the first-named 
 lof the American Commissioners. 
 
 1 never made and never heard of any such promise, or of anything 
 
 Iresenibling a promise on the subject referred to. None was ever made 
 
 |by me, formally or informally, oflicnally or unoflicially ; and I feel entire 
 
 confidence in making the assertion that none of mj' colleagues ever 
 
 Imade any promise or any declaration or statement approaching to a 
 
 Ipromise on the subject. What maj'^ have been the understanding of Sir 
 
 |Stafi:brd Northcote, or of his colleagues, I cannot undertake to say, but 
 
 that the American Commissioners gave him or them any grounds to 
 
 linulerstand that such a promise was given as he says they represented 
 
 ■to their Government as having been made, I am bound most respect- 
 
 jfuUy but most emphatically to deny. I cannot conceive from what ht» 
 
 ■has imagined it, as the only direct allusion to the three classes of 
 
 claims (called the "indirect claims") was that made on the part of the 
 
 lAmerican Commissioners on the 8th day of March, and is set forth in 
 
 |the 3Gth Protocol in the words in which it was made. 
 
 The British Government has, in the correspondenite which has 
 recently taken place, endeavored to construe the withholding of an 
 estimate of those "indirect claims" in connection with a proposition on 
 behalf of this Government, which was declined ]jy the Bntish Commis- 
 Isiouers, into their waiver. I have already discussed that question, ami 
 |sball not here again enter upon its refutation. The I'rotocols and the 
 statement approved by the Joint Commission furnish the substi'.ntiul 
 ^)art of what passed on that occasion. 1 am at a loss to conceive what 
 representation, outside of the statonuMit made in the 3t»th I'rotocol, Sir 
 jKtattbrd Northcote can have made to liis Government. He refers to 
 jsonie "personal question," soniothing which, until the time of his 
 laddress, lie and his colleagues had been under olHcial restraint from dis- 
 Iciissing, bnt the Protocols aiul the statement to which I have referred 
 
 
 
 ■u 
 
 m:i. 
 
 m 
 
t !1.^^ 
 
 In:?;'::'-' 
 
 
 V 
 
 .»'•.:.■. 
 
 
 'j ; 
 
 
 ^■'^•'•^ ' ' 
 
 ?:l 
 
 
 126 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 had been before the public both in (Ireat Britain and in the [Jiiitt'dl 
 States lor nearly a year before his declaration. It is only within a dm 
 or two that the journals containing his address have reached nu;. ] 
 have this djiy addressed a letter to yourself and to each of our colleagues j 
 on the iJomniission, calling attention to Sir Stafford's statement, andiil 
 due time may make public the correspondence. 
 
 Eeturning to Lord Granville's dispatch in the supplement to the Loil 
 don Gazette, 1 tind little else that has not already been discussed or tliati 
 requires further reply. 
 
 It may, however, be noticed that the remote or consetpiential nature oil 
 claims does not appear to have been a serious objection to the preseiital 
 tion of such claims on the part of the British Government against tlitl 
 United States. Lord Granville, in the dispatch in the suppleuiontl 
 recalls the fact that the British Commissioners repeatedly put fornariij 
 the Fenian raid claims, but not until the 3d of May, (after the Americaii| 
 Commissioners had declined to treat on them,) did the British Commijl 
 sioners admit that a portion of the claims were of a constructive ainll 
 inferential character, having thus persistently, for nearly two montliJ 
 kept before the Commissioners those constructive claims. It is noil 
 necessary now to consider the relative admissibility of "coustru<;tive" ainip 
 of "indirect" claims, as the ground for pecuniary compensation agaiusts 
 government, under the principles of International Law. 
 
 His Lordship again refers to the case presented by the British Gov] 
 ernmeut to the Claims Commission, sitting in this city, for the Coufcdj 
 erate cotton loan. AVhile (piestioning the accuracy of my stateiueut] 
 that "the United States calmly submitted to the Commission the deciJ 
 ion of its jurisdiction," he proceeds to establish its accuracy by statinJ 
 the motion made by the Counsel of this Government to dismiss tlij 
 claim. 
 
 If the British Government will follow this example, and move tlitj 
 Tribunal at Geneva to dismiss the claims which it thinks are iiol 
 included in the submission of the Treaty, a similar result may kj 
 obtained, and the benetits of the Treaty and of the principles of ]ioac« 
 ful arbitration of grave differences between nations may be established! 
 
 I am, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 IIAJIILTON FISE 
 
 General Eobekt C. SmiENCK, lOc, tCr., d'c. 
 
 Pi'---' 
 
 [I]:clo8ure in No. 57.] 
 
 Uarl liiiSNcJl to Lord Lyons. 
 
 FoiJEiGN Opfice, March 27, 1S03. 
 My Lord : jMr. Adams having asked for an interview, I had a lou| 
 conversation with him yesterday at the Foreign Ottice. lie read luoi 
 dispatch of Mr. Seward on the subject of the Alabama and Oreto. 
 this dispatch, which was not unfriendly in its tone, Mr. Seward coiiil 
 plains of the depredations on American commerce conimitted by vessel! 
 titted out in British ports, and manned, for the most part, by BiitistJ 
 sailors. He alludes to the strong feeling excited in the United States 
 by the destruction of her trading vessels and their cargoes. HJ 
 repeats the complaint conimou in Anuuica, that England is at wit 
 
RBITRATION. 
 
 I and in the LTnitwll 
 is only within a (laj| 
 avo reached nio. 
 ich of our coUeaguesj 
 i's statement, and ij 
 
 )plenH>nt to the Loil 
 eu discussed or tba!] 
 
 ise<inential nature oil 
 tiou to the presental 
 erunieut against tliti 
 
 in the supplenieutl 
 eatedly put I'ornariij 
 
 (after the Americaiil 
 the British Comiuis I 
 f a constructive aiiilj 
 
 nearly two months,! 
 •e claims. It is noil 
 )f "coustru<;tive" ainlj 
 upensatiou against a 
 
 Law. 
 L by the British Gov] 
 
 city, for the Coutedj 
 cy of my statenieutj 
 lommissiou the (lecij 
 i accuracy by statinJ 
 iment to dismiss tlij 
 
 mple, and move tlil 
 it thinks are nol 
 
 jilar result may IxS 
 principles of poacel 
 uay be establisheAl 
 
 AINIILTON FISH. 
 
 •:, March 27, 1SG3, 
 erview, I had a louj 
 ftice. lie read imsf 
 ama and Oreto. 
 e, Mr. Seward coral 
 ommitted by vesstf 
 lost part, by Britislj 
 in the United State 
 their cargoes. ^ 
 at Willi 
 
 COKRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 127 
 
 jwitli the United States, while the United States were not at war with 
 |j.]iin|inul. He expresses his hope that Great Britain, in execution of 
 |]iei''<>\vn laws, will i)ut an end to the fitting out of such vessels to prey 
 Ion the commerce of a friendly nation. I said that the ])hrase that Eng- 
 land was at war with America, but j^ merica was not at war with Eng- 
 land, was rather a figure of rhetoric than a true description of facts, 
 rfliat the facts were that two vsssels, the Oreto and the Alabama, had 
 ^^huled the operation of the Foreign Enlistment Act, and had, against 
 the will iind purpose of the British Government, made war upon Ameri- 
 can conunerce in the American seas. That the fitting out of the Ala- 
 bama, the operation against which the Foreign Enlistment Act was 
 
 'ortuguese waters at a 
 
 great dis- 
 
 Englaud is 
 
 specially directed, was carried on in V 
 
 ance from any British ])ort. That the most stringent orders had been 
 ;iven long ago to watch the proceedings of those who might be sus- 
 lected of fitting out vessels of war for Confederate purposes. That if 
 here were six vessels, as it was alleged, fitting out in British ports for 
 snch purposes, let evidence be forthcoming, and the Government would 
 lot hesitate to stop the vessels, and to bring the olienders before a 
 ;ourt of Justice. That Mr. Adams was no doubt aware that the Govern- 
 iient must proceed according to the regular process of law and upon 
 worn testimony. 
 
 Mv. Adams, on the other hand, dwelt on the novelty and enormity of 
 his species of warfare. Ue said that if a belligerent could fit out in the 
 )ort8 of a neutral swift armed vessels to prey upon the commei'ce of its 
 |ji(lvt'rsary, the commerce of that belligerent must be destroyed, and a 
 lew and terrible element of warfare would be introduced. lie was sure 
 hat England would not suffer such conduct on the i)art of France, nor 
 ■^'rance on the part of England. He should be sorry to see letters of 
 narque issued by the President; but there might be no better resource 
 lan such a measure. 
 
 I said I would at once suggest a better measure. IVIr. Seward had 
 aid to Lord Lyons tluit the crews of privateers had this advantage — 
 hat they reaped the whole benefit of the prizes they took, whereas the 
 rews of men-of-war were entitled to only half the value of the prizes 
 hey took. Let the President, I said, otter a higher reward for the cap- 
 ure of the Alabama and Oreto to the crews of men-of-war than even 
 
 le entire value of those vessels. Let him otter double their value as a 
 
 [latuity, and thus confine his action to otticers and men of the United 
 
 |JStatt's Navy, over whom he could keep a control, and who were amen- 
 
 ble to the laws which govern an honorable profession. But what could 
 
 ;nlr. Adams ask of the British Government ? What was his proposal ? 
 
 Mr. Adams said there was one thing which might be easily done. It 
 ■vas sujiposed the British Government were indifferent to these notori- 
 us violations of their own laws. Let them declare their condemnation 
 f all such infractions of law. 
 
 With respect to the law itself, Mr. Adams said either it was sufficient 
 or the purposes of neutrality, and then let the British Government 
 'uforce it, or it was insufficient, and then let the British Government 
 pply to Parliament to amend it. 
 
 1 said that the Cabinet weri>, of opinion that the low was sufficient, 
 lit that legal evidence could not always be procured ; that the British 
 xovernment had done everything in its power to execute the law; but 
 
 admitted that the cases of the Alabama and Oreto were a scandal, 
 nd in some degree a reproach to our laws. Still, I said it was my 
 elief that if all tiic assistance given to the Federals by British sub- 
 jects and British munitions of war were weighed against similar aid 
 
 -i 
 
 I 
 
 
 ■^A^iit 
 
 
 'iz 
 

 
 i 
 
 ■< );.-;.. 
 
 -1- _,S' 
 
 ■'^«^'1'' , ■, ■ ■■ ■ . 
 
 128 CORRESPONDENCE KESPECTINO GENEVA ARUITRATION. 
 
 ^'Iven to the Confederates, the bnhiiice wonhl lie greatly in favor of tli(,| 
 Federals. 
 
 Mr. A(hims totally denied this proposition. lint above all, he said,! 
 there is a manifest eonspiracy in this conntry, of which the Confedenitt 
 loan is an additional proof, to pro<lnce a state of exasperation in America, 
 and thns bring on a war with Great Britain, with a view to aid the Con ! 
 federate canse, and secure a monopoly of the trade of the Southern StatcsJ 
 whose independence these cons])irators hope to establish by these illo<^al 
 and unjust measures. He had worked to the best of his power for peace,] 
 bnt it had become a most diihcult task. 
 
 Mv. Adams fully deserves the character of having always labored fori 
 peace between our two nations, nor, 1 trust, will his ett'orts and those ot| 
 the two Governments fail of success. 
 I am, &c., 
 
 KUSSELL. 
 
 No. oS. 
 Mr. Fish to General ISchenck. 
 
 
 
 
 
 L, .. Wi,,.-,. ■)• 
 
 Y, [Telfjrrani.] 
 
 "Washington, tJune 4, 1872. 
 
 The Government of the United States dift'ers entirely from the opiiil 
 ion expressed in Lord Granville's note to you, that it is not necessarjl 
 for the agents to present the arguments of the respective Goveruuieiiti| 
 on the inth. 
 
 The fifth article of the Treaty requires that the arguments be preseutedl 
 within a specified time, which time will expire on the 15th. 
 
 Being a treaty requirement, the Executive Department of the Got| 
 ernment cannot depart from its obligations, and has not the power! 
 consent to a change of its terms. 
 
 If an adjournment is contemplated by Great Britain, with the idea oil 
 future negotiation, it is right that, with reference to the Senate artickf 
 it should be understood that this Government cannot negotiate on J 
 proposition -which involves the idea that it may be guilty of intentionall 
 ill faith, or of willful violation of its international duties, or that it rel 
 gards such acts on the part of another Power the subject of compensj| 
 tiou by the payment of damages in money. 
 
 Xo. 59. 
 
 Oencral SchencJc to Mr. Finh. 
 
 
 [Tulfgiaiii.] 
 
 London, June 5, 1872. (Received at 10.45 a. lu.) 
 
 Oi)position members in Parliament have strange and unworthy .siispil 
 
 cions and fears that the last clause of the article, although in the langiiagi 
 
 of their own Government, is not explicit enough to prevent the indiroetl 
 
 
COUUESPONDENCE RESPECTINU GENEVA AKBITUATION. 129 
 
 Icliiiiiis iVoiM boiii^" iifjiiiii l)roiif>iit tbrwiird. ^Nlifjlit wo not olfiT that if 
 jtliis (lovcniiiH'iit will a<!cei)t tlie Sciiiito lansniij?^ tor the expression of 
 Itlic niU', wo will atfi'ee to the last clause of their form, as (toninuiiiicjated 
 ■to yon ill my telejjram of the .'51st May, adding thereto the words " but 
 Kvill thereupon abandon those several enuiuerated claims as a cause 
 |()i' ditlerence between the two (iountries lo be considere<l by the Arbi- 
 Itiiitors iu making tiieir award." 
 
 Xo. (»(). 
 
 !'• 
 
 t 
 
 if 
 
 '; 
 
 V 
 
 KUSSELL. 
 
 lin, with the idoaoi 
 
 ?Ir. Fish to (}encml Svlioicl: 
 
 [Ti']oj;niiii.J 
 
 Washington, June 5, 1872. 
 
 We cannot agree to tlie suggestion in your teh>gram of this date 
 iTliis (Jovernnient deals with the JJritish (lovernment, and not with 
 ()])l)Ositiou Members of Parliainent. If that Government adopts the 
 unworthy suspicions and fears referred to in your telegram, and advances 
 tlii'in as reasons for modifying the proposed article, or suggests that 
 I this Government will not in good faith act ni>on the agreement con- 
 tained therein, all further negotiation must cease at once. 
 
 If it does not adopt or entertain those suspicious, there is no reason 
 for proposing to alter the language which was proposed by itself, has 
 been accepted by us, and which is sutticiently explicit. 
 
 You may say that this Government regards the new rule contained 
 ill the proposed article as the consideration, and will accept it as a final 
 settlement of the three classes of the indirect claims put forth in our 
 Case, to which they objected. 
 
 It is useless to expect that any change can be made in the article as 
 agreed to by the Senate. A treaty in the words which the Senate had 
 agreed upon could be ratified by that body without debate and in a few 
 minutes. Any change, however immaterial, would involve discussion 
 and debate, and in the crowded state of their business would inevitably 
 lead to the defeat of the Treaty. 
 
 We think, also, that this Government has made a large concession 
 for the sake of maintaining the important principles Involved iu the 
 Treaty. It can make no more. 
 
 fe: 
 
 Xo. Gl. 
 
 General 8che)ic1v to ]\[r. Fish. 
 
 [Teleyram I'^xtiact.] 
 
 London, June 0, ISTi'. — (Keceivod 5 p. m.) 
 
 Your telegram of yesterday received this morning. 
 
 # * #*# # * * 
 
 Yon will do me the justice to believe I have had no exchange of views 
 n a A 
 
 m 
 
 
\f r 
 
 w 
 
 TT- 
 
 ¥'':^ 
 
 1 
 
 'i ' '\ 
 
 4 
 
 '• « ■• 
 
 
 ■?:''; ■ 
 
 
 '; • * ■ ■ 
 
 
 « -i" 
 
 
 I .■ -'-Mr ' 1. ■ ^ 
 
 ' : . 
 
 
 
 I. ■ t ■;'':ii>" ■»;''"•, 
 
 
 130 C0RRE8P0NDENCK RF,8I'KCTIXa OKN'KVA AKIUTUATION. 
 
 with iiii,vl>o(l,v licrr Imt tlic (lovcnmu'iil, tlinmj;li tlic piopci- cliiiniicl. 
 must iilso (1() Justict' to tlu'iii ; tlicy liavf, not iidoptcil or syiiipatlii/n 
 w itii till' tears and suspicions of otln-is in li'f^ard t(> tlio last clause dij 
 ju'oposcd article, but deicnded it as snllicient. I, of course, would li;ivi 
 resented any intimation I'roni tlieni that my Cloveiiiment could possil)lv| 
 a<'t in bad I'ailh. 
 
 I knew your earnest desire to save tiie Treaty. I knew that, for tlic 
 consideration expressed in the rule as amended by the SeiuJte, the (iov.] 
 crnment ol'lhe Tnited States intended to al)aii(h)n alto;;'etlier the thivi 
 classes of indirect claims, and althouj;h 1 knew the dilliculty of openin,; 
 th(i main tpiestion in the Senate, I thon;4ht they niiinht at om-e af;ree u 
 show their friendly and sincere^ i»nrj)osc by expressin<;' tiiat intention, 
 even more distinctly than had been asked or needed, if by so doiiijn' tlicii 
 own expression of the rule could be secure«l. liatt; last ni^^ht, I received 
 from ]^or<l dranville, afti'r a lonj;' Cabinet session, three notes which I 
 send, but to which 1 luive not replied. 1 will see him immediately, ami i 
 commuiMcate your views as to the uselessness of expecting chan}j;eiii| 
 the Senate article, and will probably telej^raph you aj^ain to day. 
 
 Tlie tirst note is as follows : 
 
 !: 
 
 Kt^'^ 
 
 \Earl Granville to (leneral l^vlienclc.l 
 
 "SiU: I Udd before the Cabinet the telejjrapliic message from ^ir 
 Fisli, which you communicated to me on tlie M instant. That iii . 
 sage is only in answer to si portion of the objections raised by Ihi 
 Majesty's Government to the alterations in the drau<>ht article i>ro 
 posed by tlie Senate, and does not notice the otlier points to whi(!li 1 
 called your attention in n>y* letter of the L'cStli ultimo, and which 
 were intended to show that the eilect of those alterations is to trans 
 fer the application of the adjectives 'indirect' and 'remote' from 
 one subject with reference to which Ihoy have been used in the recent 
 corresi)ondence, viz, claims made as resi.lting ^J'rom the acts commitM 
 by certain vessels, to a ditterent subject, viz, those made as resulting from 
 ' the failure to ohxerve neutral ohVujaiions.'' It is evident that a loss which 
 is direct and immediate with reference to tl;e former subject may be in 
 direct and remote with reference to the latti r, and this appears to Ilcr 
 Majesty's Government to be actually the case with respect to the claims 
 Avhich it is assumed the Government of the United States still intend to 
 make before the Arbitrators. 
 
 "The (lovernment of the United States must st^e that it is impossibk' 
 for ller Majesty's (Jovernment to authoriz(^ Her JNIaJesty's Minister at 
 Washington to sign a treaty, the words of which appear to Her Majestv- 
 (lovernmcnt to say one thing upon a mere understanding to the contraiv 
 etfect." 
 
 The second note is as follows: 
 
 [Earl Granville to General ^ehcncl:] 
 
 "Sni: There is a difference of opinion between the (iovernmonl ci 
 the United States and Her JNIaJesty's Crovernment as to the necessity m 
 ])resenting the written or printed arguments on the l."Jth of June. 1 
 beg to suggest to you that the lifth article is directin-y ; it siieaks oi 
 something which it shall be the duty of the agents of the two Govern- 
 ments to do within a certain time; it does not say that the Treaty is to 
 lapse if this duty is neglected or not performed by the Agents or 
 
 "Siu: 
 ticulty coi 
 iritli iiisti 
 meiit und 
 (iovernmc 
 bitrators t 
 the argum 
 with the t 
 of the tim 
 llcr I\IaJes 
 with the f( 
 tcred by tl 
 ill this agr 
 not directl 
 iif^Tiiph an 
 as to flit III 
 Milfiil viol 
 on a ]»roi) 
 .miilty of i 
 duties iiiij^ 
 ond of tlu 
 I'liitcd St 
 liy tlieSer 
 
 iff ' 
 
IIUTUATION. 
 
 piopiT (ilianiicl. 1 
 mI or syiiipatliiztil 
 tlio lust cliiusc ml 
 
 (■DIIISC, \V(Hll(l llllVi 
 iRMlt COllM l)OMsilllv| 
 
 * ," ♦ 
 
 knew that, lor the 
 ic Senate, the dm | 
 llo^U'etlier the tlini 
 illieiilty ofopeiMii:] 
 lit at oiiee ajiiec t>i| 
 in*;' tiiat intention, 
 it by so doiiijn' tlicii 1 
 st ni^iit, 1 received 
 hree notes whicli l| 
 n immediately, a 
 :pectiny ehanj;(^ iii| 
 i|^ain to day. 
 
 inossag'o from 'Sir. 
 nstant. That in > 
 »ns raised by llci 
 au;«ht article ])io 
 points to whieli I 
 dtimo, and wliioli 
 ations is to trans] 
 nd 'remote' tVoin 
 used in the recent j 
 the acts committed' 
 as resulting from I 
 it that a loss whicli 
 subject may be in 
 is apiiears to Her 
 pe(;t to the claims 
 ites still intend to I 
 
 s 
 
 lat itis impossible 
 esty's Minister at 
 
 r to Her .Majesty's 
 ing to the contrary 
 
 10 (Jovernmoutot 
 :o the necessity of | 
 
 loth of June. I 
 ory ; it speaks of 
 
 the two (iovern- 
 it the Treaty is to 
 y the Agents or 
 
 CORUKSPONDKXCK RESI'KCTIXG GENKVA ARHITKATION. 1,31 
 
 _\M(.|ir of both (lovenimeiils, or of either of them. It would hardly be 
 siQuvsted that the Treaty would lajise if one only of tlu^ two Agents 
 (iiiiitt<'d to lodge a written or i)rintei| argument, sucli as this article con- 
 tciiipliites, yet there is no more reason lor saying that such a written or 
 ]iiiiit(<l argument to be then d«'livered is a nine qua )uni of the Treaty if 
 iMitli Agents omit it than il' <tiily one does so. The articles is in its na- 
 tiiic one of procedure only for tlu^ mutual iiil'ormatiou (it may be) of 
 tlit'iiarties, and entirely for the assistance of the Arbitrators, but mainly 
 lor tiie beiietlt and advantage of the parties themselves, who, in such 
 il iiiiitti'i', may or may not ciioose to avail themselves of it, nor would 
 any practical inconvenience (U' disadvantage arise to either party (in 
 case the arbitration proceed) from an agreement not to present sucli ar- 
 miiiu'iits until a later date, tiie Arbitrators having full i>o\ver at any 
 inter (late to admit such written or oral arguments as they may think 
 tit. Her Majesty's (lovernment would make no dilliculty as to a suitable 
 iirraiigement for the ]»resentation of the arguments if a ('onvention were 
 siti'iied by Mr. Fish and Sir l]<lwar<l Thornton and ratitied by the Sen- 
 ate, although tliei-e Avas not time for the ratilications to be exchanged 
 ill London ju'cviously to tin; l.")tli of June." 
 Third note thus : 
 
 \I'j<iyl (irdiirillc to (irucral Schcucl'.] 
 
 "Sir: 1 have to state to you that with the view of obviating the dif- 
 li(;alty conne<;ted with the meeting of the Arbitrators at Cleneva on the 
 ir»tli instant, and the ])resentation of the written or ])rinted argu- 
 ment under the tifth article of the Treaty on that day, Her ^Majesty's 
 (iovernment are still ready either to agree in an application to the Ar- 
 bitrators on the 15th to adjourn at once without the i)resentatiou of 
 the argument of either (iovernment, or to eonchule a new arrangement 
 with the treaty-making poAver of the United States for the enlargement 
 of the time; or, in.stead of the amendments to the Treaty article which 
 Her ]\[ajesty's (Government last proposed, they are willing to concliule it 
 with the following additions : First, to insert after the i)aragraph, as al- 
 tered by the Senate, the words, ' the remote or indirect losses mentioned 
 in this agreement, being losses arising remotely or indirectly from, and 
 not directly from, acts of belligerents.' Second, to insert after this par- 
 agraph another paragraph: ' further, the stipulations of this Convention 
 as to future c»)nduct have no reference to airts of intentional ill faith or 
 wilful violation of international duties.' The objections to Jiegotiating 
 on a ]n'o])osition which involves the idea that either country may be 
 uiiilty of intentional ill I'aith or wilful violation of its international 
 duties iinght be met by such a declaration as that proposed in the sec- 
 ond of these additions being inserted in the Treaty article, or, if the 
 United States should im'fer it, by an interchange of notes, approved 
 bv the Senate at the time of ratification." 
 
 No. (52. 
 
 General Sehenclc to Mr. Fish. 
 
 [Ti'legram.] 
 
 LoNDO>^, June (!, 1872. (Received 7.20 p. m.) 
 Since my Ibrmer telegram to-day I have seen Lord Granville and 
 stated to liim that it is useless to expect that any change can be made 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 I 
 
 'i ,.ife 
 
ii 
 
 Ik 4:.'- '• ^ >; ', 
 
 ItU. 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 \<*yM--;^ 
 
 . K -f- 
 
 132 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 in the article as agreed to by the Senate, and I communicated to liim 
 what you authorized ine to say, that our Government would regard tlio 
 new rule as consideration for aiul settlement of the three classes of in- 
 direct claims. I thought it best to i>ut that part of my communication 
 in formal writing and liave handed him a note as follows: 
 
 \Gcncr(d Sehenek to Earl GyanviUc.\ 
 
 "3Iv'Lobd: In the conversation we had yesterday and which was I 
 resumed this mprning, you stated tome that Her Majesty's Governniont 
 have always thought the language proposed by them in the draught article 
 as it stands suftlcient for the i)uri)ose of removing ami ])uttiug an end 
 to all demand on the part of tiie United States in respect to those indi- 
 rect claims which they i>ut forth in tiieir case at Geneva, and to the ad- 
 missibility of which Uer Majesty's Government have objected, but that 
 there were those Avho doubted whether the terms used were explicit 
 enough to make that perfectly' clear and to prevent those same claims 
 from being put forward again. I concurred with you in your view astn 
 the sufficiency of the language used in that clause of the proposed aiti 
 cle, and which the Government of the United States had accepted, and 
 I rei)elled the idea tli'^t anybody should think it ])ossible that the Gov- 
 ernment of the Uniteu States, if they should yield those claims for a I 
 consideration in a settlement between the two countries, would seek to | 
 bring them up in the future or would insist that they were vStill before 
 tlie Arbitrators for their consideration. I am now authorized, in .a tele 
 graphic dispatch received to-day from 3[r. Fish, to say that the Govern- 
 ment of the United States regards the new rule contained in ti»e pro-] 
 posed article as the consideration for and to be accepted as a Itnal set- 
 tlement of the three classes of the indirect claims i)ut forth in the Case | 
 of the United States, to whifh the (Jovernment of Great Britain liave 
 objected." 
 
 Hiv:-:: 
 
 No. G3. 
 
 Mr. Fish to (fcncral l>^chcnvh\ 
 
 (•5 -■ ■ 
 
 
 f [Telcj^rain. — Extract.] | 
 
 Washington, Jiow 7, 1S72. 
 
 Tour telegrams of yesterday received last evening. I have been 
 quite ill and nimble to reply sooner or fuller. 
 
 The rtrst criticism on the language of the Senate amendment to the 
 proposed article is regarded as liypercritical ami strained. It is so re 
 garded here generally, and a discussion upon it in the Senate or in tlie 
 press would bo inexpedient aiul would not tend to advance a settlenuMit, 
 
 The Senate is very impatient for adjouriunent ; and the Senate, (he 
 public, and tlu' press are impatient over the delays, and what they re 
 gard as either captions or dilatory oltjections and prctposals to amend m 
 explain Mhat has been int^'uded and proposed in llu^ most perfect good 
 faith. 
 
 Tilt' new article can be ratilied, as 1 said in a recent telegram ; but it 
 
 
BITRATION. 
 
 imunicatt'd to lii 
 t would regard tlip 
 throe classes of in- 
 iiy eommunication 
 ows : 
 
 J ■■''"■■ 
 
 ly and which was 
 iosty's Govoniinent 
 the draught article 
 id ])Uttiiig an end 
 q)ect to those iiidi 
 eva, and to the ad- 
 ; objected, but that 
 used were explicit 
 those same claims 
 in your view as to 
 the proposed arti 
 had accepted, and 
 sible that the Gov 
 those claims for a 
 ries, wouhl seek to 
 y were still before 
 ithorizcd, iu a tele 
 y that tile Govern- 
 taiued iu <"i»e pro- 
 pted as a liual set- 
 t forth iu the Case 
 Ireat IJritaiu have 
 
 >N, June 7, 1S72. 
 ng. I have been 
 
 iiiendment to tlie 
 lied. It is so I'c 
 Senate or in tlie 
 a nee a settlement. 
 I the .Senate, (lie 
 and Avhat they re 
 osals to amend or 
 Host perfect good 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 133 
 
 auuMidinents be proposed or explanatory notes requiring the Senate's 
 approval are submitted, it will be impossible to obtifiu ratification. To 
 insist upon any such course is to defeat the article. 
 
 This (lovernment cannot adopt the argument of Lord Granville re- 
 specting the i)utting in of the arguments of both Governments on the 
 l.ltli. We think tiie Treaty recpiires it to be done, and that the require- 
 ments can be dispensed with only by a treaty. 
 
 The Senate will adjourn on Monday. I see no possibility of an 
 agreement upon anythiag else than the article as agreed to by the 
 
 Senate. 
 
 # * # » » » * 
 
 Xo. Gi. 
 
 Gencml Schencl- to Mr. Fish. 
 
 ['rt'lt'jfniiii.] 
 
 London, June 7, 1S72. (Received 7 p. in.) 
 I liave Just re(5eived the following from Lord Granville : 
 
 [Earl (iranvlUe to Gencml Sehencl:} 
 
 "Sill: In a telegram which I have this morning received from Sir 
 Etlwaid Thornton, he remarks with reference to the lirst of the two 
 ])assiig('s which, in my letter to you of the ."ith instant, 1 stated that 
 iler ]\Iajesty's Government i)roposed to insert in theartice, in lieu of the 
 anieiulments last prop(»sed by them, that I\Ir. Fish had fie(inently in 
 eonversiition with him objected to the use of the word •belligerent,' 
 and wishes that indirect claims arising out of acts committed by per- 
 sons other than recognized belligerents, as well as belligerents, should 
 be agreed to be not admissibk' for the I'nture. If ]\Ir. Fish simuld still 
 entertain the same oi)inion. Her .Majesty's Government would )»e (luite 
 content that the passage in (juestion should ran thus : 'The renu)t(' or 
 indirect losses mentioned iu this agreement, being losses arising re- 
 motely or indirectly, and not directly from acts of war.''' 
 
 1 only a<ld tliat I Iiave given Lord (iranviUe no ground Ibi' believing 
 tliat ,v<)u will assent to any exi>ression of the rule exee^tt tliat of the 
 Senate amendment. 
 
 t te 
 
 egram ; 
 
 bnt It 
 
 No. (j'.'l. 
 
 Mr. Fish to (lo'cral Si hcnck. 
 
 ['rcIri.fMilll.J 
 
 NVasminhton, J tine S, I,s7l*. 
 Tlic relciciirc to any eonvers;il ion with Thornt<ui is unjnstilicd. i 
 li;ive in\aiiabi,v told him, as 1 have lohl yon, that it is nseless to discuss 
 
 
 
•-.■Hi-- ' ,. 
 
 
 
 134 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 anioiMluit'iits to the projwscd article. In my telogrriim of Slst, I said 
 the liritish anieiulineut left a lai{?e class of very probable cases unpro- 
 vided for. In conversation with Thornton I told liini the same, and in- 
 dicated some of those cases arisinjj from the use of the word "bellige. 
 rent," but I indicated no change that was desired by me or by this Gov- 
 ernment. I thought the aniendntent proposed objectionable, and tln' 
 last suggested amendment in telegram of yesterday does not remove 
 the objection, and I refer to my telegram of ath and repeat emphati- 
 cally the last clause. 
 
 No. m. 
 
 i^ :■• 
 
 
 
 General Schenel- to Mr. Fi.sh. 
 
 [Telegraui ] 
 
 London, June 8, 187L'. 
 I received your telegram of yesterday early this morning, and com- 
 rnunicated it immediately to Lord (Jranville. I supposed any new pro 
 posals this Government might make, or any attempt to arrive at agree 
 ment alter that, would be necessarily at Washington between you and 
 Sir Edward Thornton, under such instructions as he might receive, I 
 ihought there was no room for new suggestions, but this evening Lord 
 Granville sends me the followinij': 
 
 !»'-"•:-. 
 
 ■ f, 
 
 -''''';'-'.■ 
 
 ■ '■' 1 , ' '. ■ 
 
 ■ :{r' •: . - 
 
 :i- 
 
 
 ■S 
 
 [Earl OranriUc to (iencral HSchenvk.] 
 
 "Sir: It appears to Her INFajesty's Govornment, froni a' reviewof tlic 
 correspondence between the two Governments, that an agreement on tlio 
 supplemental article might i)robably be arrived at if sutiicient tiuie were 
 given for discussion If, therefore, the Treaty is to be maintained, an 
 adjournment of the meeting of the Arbitrators from the 1.5th instant has 
 become absolutely necessary. "With this view, 1 have the honor to i)ro- 
 pose that on the nu»eting of the Arbitrators on that day a Joint ai)i»lica 
 tion shall be made for an adjournment for eight montlis. If the (Jov- 
 ernment of the United States concur in making an application for ad- 
 journment, it is the intention of Her Maji'sty'sdlovernment to deliver to 
 the Arbitrators on the l;"Jth instant the summai-y of tiieir argument undor 
 the fifth article of tlie treaty, }iccomi»anied by a declaration, of which I 
 have the honor to inclose you a co])y tV»r the information of your Gov 
 ernment. 
 
 " ' Shcich of firaia/hf note in prescnihif/ Nuunnari/. 
 
 "'Theund<'rsignedagentof Jler lUitish Majesty has the honor to deliver 
 herewith to Count Scloi)is,tS:c., the piinted argument, showingthe points 
 and referring to the evidence on whicli the Government of Her Ilritamiic 
 IMaJesty relics, as re<iuired by the hflli aiticleof the Treaty of Washhij;- 
 ton. The undersigned is instructed by the (Jovernment which 1m' rcprc 
 sents to state tliat tliis ])rinted argument is only delixcred to the Tri 
 bunal conditionally <mi tiie adjcuirnment retjuested in ilie note which lie 
 had the honor to address to the Tribunal this day jointly witli the Agent 
 of the Lnifed States, Ix'ing carried iiil*) «'ll'cct and subject to tlie notice 
 whieli tile undersigned has tlie honor heivlty to give, tliat it is tlu> inten- 
 tion of Her Ma jest,v\s Government toeancel tlu'appointmentoi the lliitisli 
 
JBITRATION. 
 
 COKRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 135 
 
 ram of 31st, I said 
 bable cases ujipiu 
 n the same, and in. 
 the word " bellige- 
 me or by this Gov- 
 eetionable, and tlio 
 y does not remove 
 id repeat emphiiti- 
 
 Arbitrator, and to m ithdraw from the arbitiation at the close of the term 
 iixed for the adjournment, uidess the difference which has arisen between 
 the two Governments as to t he chiims for indirect losses, referred to iu the 
 iiote which the undersi{>ned had tha honor to address to Count Sdopis 
 [oil the inth of April, shall have been removed."" 
 
 No 07. 
 
 General Schenclc to Mr. Finh. 
 
 y, June 8, 1872. 
 monunf«', and coin- 
 [)osed any new pro- 
 to arrive at agree 
 II between you and 
 ' might receive. I 
 ; this evening Lord 
 
 •om a review of the 
 II agreement on tlie 
 ullicient time were 
 be maintained, an 
 le 15th instant has 
 '. the honor to pro- 
 ay a Joint ajiiilica- 
 ths. If the Gov- 
 Plilication for ad- 
 men t to deliver to 
 ir argument under 
 atioii, of which I 
 tioii of your CJov 
 
 mar II. 
 
 ;l 
 
 le honor to deliver 
 lowing the points 
 nif Her Hritamiie 
 iciity of Washtiifi- 
 iit which he repre 
 xcred to the Tri- 
 iie note which he 
 ly with llic Agent 
 »i»'cl t<» I lie notice 
 liiit it. is the iiiteii- 
 icntol the ibitisii 
 
 I >'(). UaL'.j * Lkoation OF THE United States, 
 
 London, June 8, 1872. (Keceived June 21.) 
 
 Sik: I have the honor to forward hei^ewith copies of all the corre- 
 spoiiileiH^e which has taken iilace between Lord (Jranville and myself 
 relative to the proposed new Treaty article in regard to indirect claims, 
 I .since the 31 st idtimo. 
 J am, &c., 
 
 IfOBT. C. HCnENCK. 
 Hon. Hamilton Fisir, 
 
 tScrrrtary of State. 
 
 [Inclosurc t ill No. 07.] 
 
 Earl Granville to General Svhencl: 
 
 Foreign Office, June 1, 1872. 
 
 Sii{ : In rei»ly to the communication which I received from you this 
 
 I morning, I beg to inform you that Her Majesty's (lovernment hold that 
 
 by the article adopted by the Senate, ca.ses of bad faith and wilful mis- 
 
 ieoiidiict are brought within the scoi»e of the pi'oposed agreement which 
 
 deals with pecuniary compensation. 
 
 It appears to be the view of the Government of the United States 
 that such cases are not a fit subject of pecuniary compensation, and I 
 am informed by Sir Edward Thornton that Mr. Fish is of opinion that 
 the article adopted by the Senate is capable of improvement. 
 
 The J'resident thinks that the article last proposed by Her ^Majesty's 
 (iovernment is also capable of improvement. 
 
 The American (Jovernment state that " it is not believed that there 
 is any such diHerence of object between the two Governments in the 
 delhiition and limitation which each desires to place upon the liability 
 (if a neutral, as to prevent an agreement on the language in which to 
 express it, if time be allowed for the exchange of ^iews by some other 
 means than the telegra])li." 
 
 The T.iitish Government must decline to sign a treaty wliicdi is not in 
 eoiii'onnity with their views, and which does not express the i)rinci[)les 
 which the American Government believes tc he entertained by both 
 parties to the negotiation, and which, iminediat<'ly alter being signed, 
 would become the subject of negotiation with ii view to its alteration. 
 
 In this jiosition they rejieat their readiness to e.\teiid tht^tiine allowed 
 for the arbitration to meet at Geneva, and they have, as you are aware, 
 provided Sir 10. Thornton with full jtowers to s>'>n a. treaty for this 
 piupose; or they are willing to concur in a joint application to the Tri- 
 
 I 
 
 I !' 
 
 ■ ^§; I 
 
 ■J ^ "fij?i-> I 
 
 ^•1 
 , if 
 
-; i^ •« .. >'i 
 
 
 
 '■'■■• '''.'■'■ 
 |.-v '■■''.■• ;>;. . ■ .■' 
 
 '•'■.•i>^.'!'., . :, ' 
 
 
 136 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 bunal of Arbitration at once to adjourn the procecliiigs of the arbitra- 
 tion, Avhich they are advised it is within the competence of the Arbj. 
 trators to do upon such an application without a fresh treaty. 
 
 I have, &c. 
 
 GRANVILLE. 
 
 ' [luclosurc 2 ill No. C7.] 
 
 General Sclienek to Earl Granville. i 
 
 Legation or the TJnitp.u States, 
 
 Lo^'don, June 1, 187L'. 
 
 My Lord: I received an hour ago your note of this date, in whiclil 
 you reply to the tcleftram of Mr. Fish, which I 'communicated to .you 
 this morning, and inform me that Her Mii jesty's Government decline to 
 sign a treaty of the character and with the arrangement for the future, 
 suggested by Mr. Fish, but repeat their readiness to extend the time for 
 the Arbitrators to meet at Geneva, for which purpose Sir Edward Thorn 
 ton has full powers to sign a treaty; or they are willing, you state, to 
 concur in a joint application to the Tribunal of Arbitration to adjourn 
 their proceedings, which they are advised it is within the competence | 
 of the Arbitrators to do upon such an application without a fresh treaty. 
 
 I have sent the full text of your note to Mr. Fish by telegraph. 
 I have, &C., 
 
 u IJOBT. C. SCIIEJsX'K. 
 
 [Inclosnio 3 in No. (17. ] 
 
 Earl Granrille to General ^eJtenel: 
 
 Foreign Office, June 3, ISTi*. 
 Sir : In reply to tlie question which you put to me this morniiiji', 1 1 
 have to state to you that Her Majesty's Government consider that the 
 Arbitrators must no doubt meet on the l.lth of June, but the tifth ar 
 tide of the Treaty, though it contein[>lates the delivery of written arj^u 
 ments on that day, does not make the further prosecution of the arlti- 
 tration impossible, if, on that day, neither party presents any written 
 argument. The Arbitrators have full jjower to adjourn, and they liave 
 also full power to call, after tlie loth, for any further statements or argu- 
 ments, written or oral, from time to time, as tliey may think fit. It, 
 therefore, both parties agree not to present any argument till a later | 
 day than the luth requesting tlu^ .Vrbitrators to adjourn, and if the 
 Arbitrators should, on any day to which they may have adjourned, ne 
 cei)t the argument which both ])arties may then wish to tender to tlitiii. 
 this will be (juite within their power. 
 1 have, <S:c., 
 
 GijAX villi:. 
 
 [Imlii.siii'i' I ill Xo. (17.] 
 Karl Granville to General Selieiiel-. 
 
 FoREKiN Office, June o, 187l'. 
 
 Sir: I laid before the Cabinet the telegraphic m(\ssage from ."\Ii'. 
 Fish, which you eomnmnicated to nie on the M instant. 
 
 Tiiat message is only in answer to a portion of tlie objections raised 
 by Her .Majesty's Government t<» the alterations in the draught article 
 
 i¥^!' 
 
 I v,- 
 
BITRATION. 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA AltBITRATION. 137 
 
 igs of the arbitra- 
 tence of the Arl)i. 
 li treaty. 
 
 GRANVILLE. 
 
 Kv States, 
 on, June 1, 1872. 
 his date, in whiclil 
 imunicated to .you 
 ?ruineut decline to 
 ent for the future, 
 ixtend the time for 
 Sir Edward Thorn 
 lling:, you state, to 
 tratiou to adjourn 
 ti tlio competence 
 lOut a fresh treaty, I 
 y telegraph. 
 
 C. SCIIENCK. 
 
 3E, June a, 1871'. 
 
 this morniiij>-, 1 1 
 
 consider that the 
 
 but the tifth ar 
 
 y of written ar^ii 
 
 utioii of the iirhi- 
 
 seiits any written 
 
 rn, and they luivi' 
 
 atements or argil- 
 
 nay think lit. it, 
 
 ment till a later 
 
 ourn, iind if tlio 
 
 ve adj'ounu'd. -m- 
 
 () tender to tlieiii, 
 
 (5iJAXVlLLi:. 
 
 :, 'Ittnc tt, 187i'. 
 essage from Mr, 
 
 objections raised 
 (' (Iniuglit article 
 
 Loposed by the Senate, and does not notice the other points to which 
 [called your attention in m.y letter of the 28th ultimo, and Avhich were 
 Intended" to show that the effect of those alterations is to transfer the 
 Application of the adjectives "indirect" and "remote'' from one subject 
 [\itli reference to which they have been used in the recent corresjjond- 
 tiice, viz: claims made as resulting from the '■^aciti committed'''' by 
 |ertain vessels, to a diflerent subject, viz: those made as resulting from 
 tthc J'dilnre to observe neutral obligations." It is evi<lent that a loss 
 ihieli is direct and immediate Avith reference to the former subject, 
 tiiay be indirect and remote with reference to the latter, and this appears 
 fo iler Majesty's Goxernment to be actually the case, with respect to 
 jlie claims which it is assumed the Government of the United States 
 ktill intend to make before the Arbitrators. The Govern.aeut of the 
 Luited States must see that it is impossible for Her Majesty's Govern- 
 hiieiit to authorize Her Majesty's ]\[inister at Washington to sign a 
 [reaty, the words of which aj)j)ear to Her Majesty's Government to 
 ^ay one thing, upon a mere understanding to the contrary effect. 
 I have the honor to be, Avith the highest consideration, sir, your 
 lost obedient, humble servant, 
 
 GRANVILLE. 
 
 [luflosui'o 5 in No. 1)7.'' 
 
 Earl Granville to General Schenck. 
 
 rouEKiN Offioe, Juno ."), 1872. 
 
 Siii: There is a ditference of o]»inion between the Government of the 
 'nited States and Her Majesty's Government as to the necessity of ))re- 
 feenting the written or printed arguments on the loth of June. I beg 
 [o suf-gest to you that, 1st, the lifth article is directory; it .speaks of 
 poinething wiiich " it shall be the <luty of the agents " of the two Gov- 
 Wnnieiits to do within a certain time. It does not .say that the Treaty 
 Is to litpsr if this duty is ne».glecteil or not i)erformed by the Agents or 
 IVgent of both Governments, or of either of tijem, 2d. It would hardly 
 |)e ,suj;gested that the Treaty would lapse, W one onh/ of the two iVgents 
 Diuittcd to lodge a written or printed argument, such as this article con- 
 Jteniphites. Yet there is no more reason for saying that such a written 
 lupiintcd argunKnt,to Ix'then deli\('rc((,isa sine tjua noii of the Treaty, 
 li' hotli Agents omit it, than if one onlj/ does .so. .id. Tlie article is, in 
 [ts nature, one of procedure only, for the mutual information (it may be) 
 :)f tlie ])arties, and entirely for the assistance of tlu' Arbitrators, but 
 
 ainly tor the benelit and advantage of the ]»artics themselves, who, in 
 ^iiieli i'. matter, may or may not choo.se to avail themselves of it. 1th. 
 \w would any practical iiu'onvenience or disadvantage arise to either 
 
 aity (in ca.se the arbitration jjrocccds) from an agrecnu'ot not to pre- 
 sent .sucli arguments until a liiter date, the Arbitiators having lull jiowcr 
 ^it any later date to admit such writteu or oial arguments as they may 
 think" fit. 
 
 llcr Maji'sty's GoNcriinicnt would mak(> no <iiriiciilty as to a suitable 
 
 ^n'ran,i:'ement ['"the presentation of the arguments if a convention were 
 
 sij^ned by.Mr. I'ish and Sir iMlward Thornton and ratilied by the Senate, 
 
 liiltlKtniih there was not tinu' tor the ratillcations to be exchanged in 
 
 .oiidon previously to tlie l.")tli of. June. 
 
 I have the honor to be, witii the highest consideration, sir, your most 
 itliedieiit, Innnble servant, 
 
 GRANVILLE. 
 
li 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ,'\i. 
 
 .f ■;>■■''■■!> j .' 
 
 ■'.,_»'4lri-,-'4 »" 
 
 
 138 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 V [Inclosure 6 in No. 07.) 
 
 Uarl Granrille to General Schencl: 
 
 Foreign Office, June 5, 1872. 
 
 Sill: I have to state to you that with the view of obviating the dif 
 cultj' coiiiiected with the meeting of the Arbitrator.s at Geneva on tliJ 
 lotli instant, and the presentation of the written or printed argnmeiitl 
 under the fifth article of the Treaty on that day. Her Majesty's (tovpih 
 ment are still ready either to agree in an application to the ArbitratoBl 
 on the 15th to adjourn at once without the presentation of the argumeiitl 
 of either Government, or to conclude a new arrangement with the treatyl 
 making power of the United States for the enlargement of the time; or,[ 
 instead of the amendments to the Treaty article, which Her !Majest,v',| 
 Government last i)roposed, tlrey are willing to conclude it with the i 
 lowing additions: First, to insert after the paragraph, as altered by tliel 
 Senate, the words "the remote or indirect losses mentioned in this agroel 
 ment, being losses arising remotely or indirectly and not directly fronil 
 acts of belligerents." Secondly, to insert after tuis paragraph anotliwl 
 ]>ara graph : "Further the sti])ulations of this Convention as to future ooul 
 duct have no reference to acts of intentional ill-faith or wilful violationl 
 of international duties.'' 
 
 The objection to uegotiating a proi)osition which involves the ideal 
 that either country may be guilty of international ill-faith or wilful vioj 
 lation of its international duties might be met by sucli declaration iiJ 
 that i)roposed in the second of these additions being inserted in tliel 
 Treaty articles, or, if the United States should prefer it, by an iiiteij 
 change of notes approved by the Senate at the time of ratification. 
 
 I have the honor to be, sir, vour most obedient, humble servant, 
 
 GRANVn.LE. 
 
 General Sciii:>'rK, dc, ttr., dr. 
 
 [Iiiclosiu'c 7 in No. r.7.] 
 General Schencl' to Earl Granville. 
 
 
 Legation of the United State.s, 
 
 London, June (i, 1S72. 
 
 My Lord: I had the honor to receive late last night your three notcil 
 of yesterday's date containing several suggestions for a modification oil 
 the proposed supi)lementary article, and with a further explanation oil 
 the views aiul reasons therefor of Jler ]Majesty's Government, and iiil 
 which you also present again suggestions and views in relation to (]ues[ 
 tions about the meeting of the Arbitrators and the presentation of ai;,ni| 
 ments on the loth instant. 
 
 AVithout commenting (Ui or replying to these suggestions, views, ot| 
 reasons which you desire to bring thus again ami more specifically ti) 
 the notice of my Governnu'ut, I have to inform you that I have hastonoil 
 to ti'ausmit the full text of each of tliese communications by telegraiili 
 to ]\Ir. Fish, at Washington. 
 
 1 have the liiuior to be, my Lord, with the highest consideration, Yoiir| 
 Lordsiiiji's most obedient servant, 
 
 KOBT. C. S(U!K^T1C. 
 
 The ]{ight Hon. the Harl (JllANVlLLE. 
 
RBITRATION. 
 
 COlUiKSPONDENCK RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 139 
 
 [Inclosiito r* in No. (iT.] 
 
 General ^chcnclc to Eurl (iranciUc. 
 
 Legation of the United States, 
 
 IjondoUj June (5, 1S72. 
 
 Mv LoiM) : III tlK* coiivorsatioii we had yostorday, and which wa.s 
 psumcd this inoniiiif;-, you stated to me that Her Majesty's Goveru- 
 leiit have always thoiifjht the hinguage proposed by them in the draught 
 rticlo, as it stands, sutiicient lor tlie purpose of renioviufj and i)utting' 
 III Olid to all demand on the part of the United States in respect to 
 liose indirect claims which they put forth in their Case at (leneva, and 
 
 the admissibility of which Her Majesty's (iovernment have objected; 
 lut that there were those who doubted whether the terms used were 
 qilicit enougli to make that perfectly clear, and to prevent those same 
 laiius from being put forward again. I. concurred with you in your 
 Jew as to the sufliciency of the language used in that clause of the 
 Iroposed article, and which the Government of the United States had 
 yrepted ; and 1 repelled the idea that anybody should think it possible 
 [lilt the CJovernment of the United States, if they should yield those 
 laiiiis for a consideration in a settlement between the two countries, 
 foiild seek to bring them up in the future, or would insist that they 
 K'le still before the Arbitrators for their consideration. 
 
 I am now autliorized, in a telegraphic dispatch received to-day from 
 
 Ir. Fish, to say that the Government of the United States regards the 
 
 lew rule contained in the proposed article as the consideration for, and 
 
 1)0 iU'oepted as, a Hiiiil settlement of the three classes of the indirect 
 iaiiiis imt forth in the Case of the United States to which the Govern- 
 poiit of Great Britain have objected. 
 
 have the hoiun- to be, Avith the highest consideration, my Lord, 
 tour L()idshii)'s most obedient servant, 
 
 EOBT. C. SCIIEXCK. 
 
 Tlio Kight Hon. the Eahl Gkanville. 
 
 [Iiiclosuie 11 ill No. ()7.] 
 
 Eail (it'unviUe to (icneval Schenci: 
 
 FoijEKiN Office, June 7, 1S72. 
 .Sir: 111 a telegram, wliich J have this morning received I'rom Sir 
 idwanl Thornton, he remarks, with reference to the first of tlie two 
 Bis.sagos which, in my letter to you of the 5th instant, 1 stated that Her 
 lajost.v's Government proposed to insert in the article in lieu of the 
 ■iioiuliiients last proposed by tlieni. that Mv. Fish had frequently, in 
 biivorsation with him, objected to tlie use of the word " belligerent,'" 
 kul wishes that indirect claims arising out of acts committed by iier- 
 piis other than recognized belligerents, as well as belligerents, should 
 k' a, mood to be not admissible for the future. 
 
 I If Mr. I'M sh should still entertain the same opinion. Her ^lajesty's 
 jovormuent would be quite (content that the passage in (piestion should 
 lintliiis: 
 
 "The remote or indirect losses mentioned in this agreement, being 
 bssos arising remotely or indirectly, and not directly, from acts of war." 
 I 1 have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most 
 podioiit, humble servant, 
 
 (HLV^'VILLE. 
 
 <!oiioial S('in:N('ic, dr., dr., dv. 
 
 i 
 
 8' 
 
 i: '. v! 
 
 
 W' 
 
 ■ '& 
 
 
 ■V. ' 
 
 i 
 
 .^ ■ 
 
 ;^f, 
 
 ^. '-}. 
 
 *S •'> 
 
 r:;i; 
 
 1 '1 
 
 *> '' : 
 
 J 'l 
 
 f . ■ 
 
 '1' '' i 
 
 •rH 
 
 1 4 
 
 i ^-i 
 
 
 J ■ ■ - . ft 
 
 Wi 
 
 ;■ : 1 
 
 m 
 
 !: i'r 
 
 fm 
 
 liHl 
 

 140 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 \ [Inclosure 10 in No. (»7.] > 
 
 General JSchcnclc to Earl Granrlllc. 
 
 Legation of the United States, 
 
 London, June 8, 187: 
 
 My Lord : 1 retreivod at seven o'clock last evening your note of Vbj 
 terxlay refeninj;' to what Sir E<hvar(l Thornton lia.s stated to you j| 
 reganl to Mr. Fish's objection to the word " belligerent," and sngjjestiiij;.| 
 uiodilication of language to obviate that objection. 
 
 I transmitted the lull text of your note by telejiraph to Mr. F\A\ 
 immediately. At the same time 1 informed him that 1 am ftivin.i>' Ydiil 
 Lordship no s'round for believing that the (Jovernnient of the Uiiitiiil 
 States will be able now to assent to any change of the rule as expres.scii 
 by the Senate amendment. 
 
 I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, Your Lordsliiii'J 
 most obedient servant, 
 
 llOBT. C. SCIJEXCK. 
 
 The Kight Hon. the Earl Granville. 
 
 , v.. i. 
 
 ;'„■%::■ 
 
 ■mm 
 
 '••1 
 
 , .; ;•.'•• ;f"-h! 
 
 ■»l 
 
 
 i- 
 
 ■■fm 
 
 •i '■■■':-■"■'■ 
 
 'k 
 
 tt 
 
 i. ;■■.■/ , '.' 
 
 
 
 V ' 
 
 
 
 -•' ., ' *■ 
 
 ;VJ 
 
 1 *' 
 
 
 •Svjik'i 
 
 •V'.i ^" 
 
 
 ■ AMflL 
 
 !> •■ 
 
 
 ■ '^mxh 
 
 aI: 
 
 '- •■ 
 
 ■ '■■ -^l 
 
 % 
 
 '' ' ;. 
 
 
 Xo. 08. 
 Mr. Fish to (ieneral ISchencl: 
 
 [Tclc-riiiii.] 
 
 Department of State, 
 
 Washington, Juno 9, 187: 
 
 Your telegram received at midnight. The proposal contained in LoiJ 
 (iranville's note of yesterday cannot be accepted V)y this GoverniiuMitl 
 In my dispatch of June 2 I said that in the oi)inion of this Govermiuiil 
 the Arbitrators have tin; iK)wer to adjourn either on their own ni()tiii| 
 or on that of either i)arty, and that if the arguments be put in on l)i 
 sides on l.lth, and (ireat Britain moves for an a<lj(»nrnment, we v'Hl 
 assent, but we cannot be parties to a joint application for adjourniiiciitl 
 This (lovernment has no reason to ask an adjournment, aiul if it al)stiik| 
 from resisting a motion to adjourn, it will do so from courtesy to (ireii 
 ilritain. Nor can this (lovernment directly or indirectly ^k- i* paitytJ 
 an agreement or undeistanding whereby (heat Britain is to subiiiit lief 
 argument to the Tribunal conditionally or under any protest or rescni 
 tion. The obligations of the Treaty are reciprocal, and no liglit !■ 
 reserved to eitlier (loveinment of any <pialilied action while the etiii: 
 is fulfilling the spirit and the letter of the Treaty. Th(( United St;itr| 
 will feel itself bound to i)rotcst against a conditional i)resentation ot'tli 
 argument on the ]»art of (ireat Britain, or any assumed reservation i 
 right on liei- i)art to withdraw. 
 
 If the British (lovernment have the right or the desire to witli<li';i 
 fi'om the arbitration, or to cancel the ai»pointment of their Arbitiiit('i| 
 they must do so without asking the consent of this (lovernnu'Ut. 
 
 If siu'li notice of witlidri'.wal as is suggested in JiOrd (Iranville's noil 
 be given, it will be the duty of the .\merican Agent and Counsel ti| 
 repel it very decidedly, and in terms which self-respect will make nca 
 sary. Such notice woidd instantly terminate all further negotiations ni 
 the part of this (lovernment. You will send to Davis cojjy of the iinl 
 posed article, suid inform him fully of the present condition of the MCL'd 
 
 F»A 
 
;bitration. 
 
 I'ED States, 
 Ion, June 8, 1872. 
 [>• your note of jf, 
 fS stated to you iJ 
 t," and snggestiugl 
 
 ■graph to ]Mr. Fisii 
 t 1 am ftivinji' Voiil 
 iieut of tlie UnitiJ 
 le rule as expressci 
 
 on, Your LordsliiiiJ 
 
 '. C. SCIIEXCK. 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 141 
 
 liiitittii between the two Governments, and you will send a copy of 
 lour telegram of yesterday and of this reply, and will keep him advised 
 if any further corresponclence or i)roceedings. Send copies of all the 
 leccnt corres])ondence nc^cessary to inform him and the Counsel of what 
 has been done. ' 
 
 ? State, 
 
 Uon, June 0, iSTi'. 
 
 al contained in LmJ 
 
 )y tliis Govermneiitl 
 
 of tins GovermiKiii 
 
 their own nu)tM| 
 
 ts be put in on bnt 
 
 Ijournment, we vi 
 
 on for ad.iournui('iit,| 
 
 ?nt, and if it abstiii 
 
 n courtesy to (!rd 
 
 rectly W' .^ i)art.vti| 
 
 ain is to submit luj 
 
 \- i)rotest or lescnj 
 
 il, ami no right i| 
 
 ion wliile the otlicl 
 
 Th(! United Stakf 
 
 l)resentation of tlii 
 
 mied reservation li 
 
 desire to witlidnrl 
 of their Arbitnitdif 
 iovcrnment. 
 )rd (lranvilU'"s ihii| 
 ■nt and Counsel 
 'ct will make nm>| 
 lier negotiatidusiit 
 ,'is copy of tlie 1*1 
 i(lition\)f the wi4 
 
 Xo. (JO. 
 Mr. Fish to Mr. Davis. 
 
 [T(.'l(!{^iiun.] 
 
 Department of State, 
 
 Washington, Jnne 9, 1872. 
 
 You and the Counsel should be in Geneva on 15th regardless of any 
 it'tiou which Great liritain may be supposed to be likely to take. If 
 leenKMl necessary, notice must be given to Arbitrators that you will be 
 liere to deliver argument and to proceed according to the Treaty. I 
 liive telegraphed Schenck to send you full infoi nation of i)resont state 
 If negotiations, with copies of recent correspondence, and especially of a 
 loto of Granville and of my reply of this date. Should any notice such 
 Is is indicated in Granville's note be given, a decided protest must be 
 liitered against nuy qualified or conditional appearance before the Tri- 
 bunal. The course and the notice suggested by Granville will be not 
 Inly a failure to observe her treaty obligations with this Government 
 In the part of Great Britain, but will also be an indignity to the friendly 
 [owers who have appointed Arbitrators to attend a Tribunal before 
 rliich two parties are to appear in good faith. Use calm and measured 
 jingnage, avoiding menace or irritation in whatever is said. You will 
 
 )niuuuiicato this and other telegrams, and all information received 
 [cm Schenck to Counsel, who will consider them addressed to them, 
 )rI will please regulate their course accordingly. In the very great 
 
 icertainty as to the course which England intends to observe, it is 
 tfticult, if not impossible, to give instructions to meet the contingencies 
 [hicb may arise. If Great Britain put in her argument on 15th with- 
 lit any offensive notice, and then moves for an adjournment, yon and 
 jounsel on our side will say that the United States do not object to the 
 |1 jour anient. 
 
 No. 70. 
 General Schcnclc to ]\ir. Fish. 
 
 [Telcgriiin.] 
 
 Lo^fDON, June 11, 1872. (Beceived at 11.50 a. m.) 
 [lU'ceived yesterday morning your telegram of 9th, and communi- 
 ktcd to Lord Granville immediately all except the instructions at the 
 loso. Late last night, after a long Cabinet, he sent me the following 
 3to: 
 
 [Earl Oranville to (Seneral Schenck. \ 
 
 " Sir : Iler ^Majesty's Government understand that the Government of 
 |c United States decline any agreement between the twoCovernments, 
 aloss the Govern nuHit of Her IMaJesty consent to ^sign the supplemental 
 hide as altered by the Senate, to which Her Majesty's Government 
 
 r 
 
 i 
 
si. ■>••*•; !^ ■ 
 
 I <! 
 
 I -J'^ ■. 
 
 .^t 
 
 »; 
 
 ; *. i « -' • "^ ■ ^ * 
 
 "W. 
 
 '..I- ::'■;»- .■ 
 
 
 '■^ri'^";- 
 
 B. ;^t• .^-■. '■ .'•,'5: »- 
 
 
 142 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARnlTRATION. 
 
 have stilted their objections, or unless without iiiiy deehuiition usti 
 our (h)infi' so .siih modo they ii;>ree to tiike a further step in the procchjl 
 injis before tlu' Arbitrators, whih' a uiisniMk'rstaiidiii}; exists as to \vl 
 both parties agreed to stdnuit to arbitration. .Mr. Fish states to \i| 
 that *'ie tJovernnient of tlie United States have nt) reason to ask for; 
 adJournnuMit of the arbitration at (leneva. Tiie reason whieli a<!tn;it(j 
 ITer ^Majesty's (lovernnient in proposin<>' it was to obtain time foitlij 
 eonehision of an aj^reenient at wiiieii botli i)arties had ahea<ly iicnili 
 arrived. ]Ier Majesty's (iovernnu'ut will liave now to consider wlnj 
 may be the eouise most consistent with the declarations they have iicij 
 tofore made most respec-tfid to tlu' Tribnmd of Aibitration and 
 most courteous to the ruitel States. The lUitish Arbitrator will inij 
 ceed to Cleneva, and at the nu'ctinj;' of the Tribunal the Ibitish Ajiciij 
 will be directed to i)resent to them a statement to the following' elltTtI 
 " Her 3IaJ(.'sty's (.loverninent regret to be under the necessity of inforrJ 
 iu<;' the Arbitratois that the dilference between Jler .Majesty's (JovcriJ 
 ment, and the (lov«'rnment of the United States referre*! to in the iiuij 
 which accomi)anied the presentation of the British Counter Case (I 
 the l.")th of April last, has not yet been removed. Iler ^Nraicstjl 
 (U)vernment have, however, been en<«a}>ed in negotiations with tlij 
 Ciovernnient of the United States, which have continued down to tlil 
 l)resent time, for the solution of the ditliculty which has thus aviscif 
 and they do not abandon the hope tiiat, if further time were given tJ 
 that purpose, such a solution might be tbund practicable. Under tlici 
 circumstances, the course which Jler Majesty's (Joverunieut would i 
 speetfully re(pu\st the Tribunal to take is to adjourn the present nieetiiij 
 for such a i)eriod as may emd)le a supplementary convention to be .stij 
 concluded and ratitied between the high contracting parties. In i 
 meau time the high contracting [)arties not being in accord as to th 
 subject-matter of the reference to arbitration. Her JVraJesty's Govid 
 nient regret to find theuiselves unable to deliver the written argiuneDi 
 w hieh their Agent is direcjted to put in under the fifth article of 
 Treaty, (although that argument has been duly prepared and is intlj 
 hands of their Agent,) or to take any other steps at the present tiniti 
 the intende<l arbitration. It will of course be understood by theTri 
 nal that Her 3IaJesty's CJovernment (while they would consider tlielij 
 bunal to have full j)ower to i)roeeed at the end of the period of adjouri 
 ment if the difference between the high contracting parties shouUl m 
 have been removed, uotwithstanding the non-delivery on this ilayt| 
 the argument l)y the Ibitish Agent) continue, while retiuesting tliisi 
 journment, to reserve all Jler ^Majesty's rights in the event of an nj;if 
 ment not being tinally arrived at in the same manner as was expre- 
 in the note which accompanied the Jbitish Counter Case.*' 
 
 ■!'.^-.::: 
 
 ;i^l ..';.,. 
 
 
 
 
 
 No. 71. 
 
 General Schcnrlc io ^fr. Fish. 
 [T('l(\!;i:mi.] 
 
 London, June 11, 1872. (lieceived at o.40 p.m. j 
 Have acknowledged J^ord (Jranville's note telegraphed yonthi. nionj 
 ing, saying I liave transmitted it to my Government, at Wasliinjjtoij 
 where I have no doubt it will be received and considered in the sai 
 friendly si)irit in which it is intended, and as a sincere effort yet toprj 
 serve the Treaty between the two countries. 
 
IIUTRATION. 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 14;') 
 
 No. 7li. 
 
 OeneraJ aSVA<';«7,- to Mr. Fish. 
 
 [TeU'Kiiiin.] ! 
 
 " London, Jitnr 1l', 1872 — :\A~t p. in. 
 
 (Ivccoivod at WA't j). in.) 
 Have tliis uioniont received another loiij;' (^onununieation* (Voni Lord 
 llranville. It is in a very Criendly spirit. He recai>itnlates the histo'y 
 If the ne.u'otiation Ibr a snp[)lenientary arti(;k\ and then proceeds as 
 follows: • , 
 
 [Earl (Iranvillc to ileiK ral Schcncl\\ 
 
 '•J[er Majesty's Government believe, therefore, that they have met 
 Lll the objections, so I'ar as they have been informed of tiiem, wjiich 
 Live been from time to time advanced to the snyji^estions which they 
 have made, ami that tliis recapitulation of the nej^otiation shows that, 
 liilcss Jler Majesty's Government linve erird in their view of the 
 Lobable intention of the Senate, the two Governments are substantially 
 (greed, or that, if there is any difference between them in principle, it 
 
 rcduceil to tlie smallest proportions. 
 
 "On the other liaud, the objections which Her jMaJesty's Government 
 liitortain, and have expressed, to tlie lanjiuage of the amendments made 
 Iv the Senate, are founded upon reasons to which they attach the 
 Ireatest importance, thou}j;h they thiidc it possible Ihat the Senate did 
 lot intend to use that language iu the sense wdiich, according to the 
 [lew of Her iVIaJesty's Government, the words properly bear. 
 
 " The Government of the United States have stated in the telegraphic 
 jie.ssage from Mr. Fish, to which I have already- referred, that there are 
 Bine (;ases not provided for in the words suggested by Her Majesty's 
 Government on the oOtli of IVlay. If the Government of the ITnited 
 (tates are of opinion that these cases are not covered by the hist ])ro- 
 
 3se(l form of article, and will state what are the cases in question, 
 |er Majesty's Government cannot but think that the two Governments 
 light probably agree upon a form of wortls which would meet them 
 (itliout being open to the objections which they have felt to the wording 
 \ the article as proposed by the Senate. Her Majesty's Government 
 
 ivo never put forward their words as an ultimatun), and they will be 
 [illiiig to consider at the proper time other words, if an adjournment is 
 CToed upon." 
 
 \l shall make no reply at present to this communication, not having 
 Join you any answer to or comment on Granville's note of lOth, tele- 
 Vaplied yesterday morning. lEavc sent J)avis copies of all notes and 
 Ik'grams. Jle goes to Geneva to-morrow. 
 
 
 Xo. 7:5. 
 O'cncrdI Scltenci: to ^[r. F!.slt. 
 
 |o. 2.")1.] LE(iAT10N OF THE UNITED StATEH, 
 
 London, June 1.'}, 1872. (Keceived June 2r».) 
 
 Su!: With this 1 transmit copies of all correspondence with the 
 oreigii OUice. 
 
 For the full text of tliis note see iuelosiue (i iu No. 73. 
 
in 
 .1 
 
 I 
 
 Vf' J. ■.' 
 
 h"*'" 
 
 
 144 COURESPONDENCK RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 J send also loports of procccMlins's in botli llousos of Piirliiiiiu'iif, ai 
 articles from tlic- leading Journals siiico that date, wlii(!h will serve in 
 inform yon better than anythinfj; else eonhl do of the excitement iii 
 anxiety here occasioned by the imminent prospect of the failnre ol' tliJ 
 arbitration at (leneva. 
 
 U|) to this time 1 am witliont any reply from you to my two tele^raiiiil 
 of the lltli, and one of yesterday, (12th,) and 1 am, thercibre, nnal)l('ti| 
 inform Lord CJraiiville whether yon are willinj;' to yive an> consideratioj 
 to hiH last two commuincations. You have ]»rol>ably, however, ti'lfl 
 yraphed your furtlu^r views ami instructions direct to ^fr. Davis, llJ 
 yoes from I'aris to (Jeiu'va to-day, aiul has been furnished with (lopiij 
 of all notes ami tt^le^rams relatiu'-' to recent negotiations and the jioiiit. 
 that have been in controversy. 
 
 1 have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 KOr.T. C. SCIIEXCK, 
 
 Hon. ITamilton Fisir, 
 
 HwrcUnij of State, ]Vo,shb)(iton, I). C. -^ 
 
 .1' ' . ■ ; 
 
 [Iiiclosuro 1 in No. 73.] 
 
 Eorl (lyanriUc to General SchencJx, 
 
 
 
 r .i''- '■■■■ ■^ . ■ , 
 
 
 
 ^' Foreign Office, June 8, 1872. 1 
 
 Sir: It api)ears to Her ]Majesty\s (loverunient from a review of tli| 
 correspondence between the two Governments that an agreement on 1 
 supplemental article might probably be arrived at, if sullicient ti 
 were given for discussion. If, therefore, the Treaty is to be maintainoJ 
 an adjournment of the meeting of the Arbitrators from the 15th iiist;iii| 
 has become absolutely necessary. With this view I have the hoiioii 
 in'opose that on the meeting oi the Arbitrators on that day, a joint appl 
 cation shall be made for an adjournment for eight mouths. 
 
 If the trovernment of the United States concur in making an applkJ 
 tiou for adjournment, it is the intention of Ilev Majesty's Governiiieif 
 to deliver to the Arbitrators on the loth instant the suu)mary of tliei 
 argument under the fifth article of the Treaty, accompanied by a decliirl 
 tion of which I have the honor to inclose you a copy for the inforiiiatii| 
 of your Government. 
 
 I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your iiw-j 
 obedient, humble servant, 
 
 GRAN villi: 
 
 General Sciienck, ttc, dr., dr. 
 
 
 ,•■.-1 -' 
 
 '1^! 
 
 ^f 
 
 ' l^^*"! 
 
 [Iiiclosnre 2 in No. 7:! ] 
 
 iSJceteh of drangJit-note in prcHcntim/ suinmanj. 
 
 ^Tho undersigned Agent of Her liritannic Majesty has the honnri 
 deliver herewith to Count Sclopis, &c., the printed argument, sliowii 
 the points and referring to the evidence on which the Governnientj 
 Her Britannic Majesty relies, as required by the fifth article of the TieiiJ 
 of Washington. I 
 
 The undersigned is instructed by the Government which he reprcscni 
 
 i-. 
 
niTRATION. 
 
 COKRr.SPOXDKNCK KKSPKCTINfJ OKN'KVA ARUI llfATIOX. 
 
 145 
 
 in sl.i!<' tliiit lliis i»iiiitt'(l iir/^iimciit is only dcliv ciimI to the 'rril)miiil 
 [oiiditioiiiilly on tlic iuljoiiniiiiciit rctiucstrd in tli(^ not<> wliicli lie liad 
 till' honor to addit'ss to tlic Tiihiiniil tliis diiy, jointly with tlic !i.i;<'nt of 
 hie riiitcd Stntt's. \n'u\<r rallied into ctli'ct, and siiUJcct to llio notice, 
 kvliicli tin' nndeisijiiied lias the honor hereby to jiive. that it is the iidcn- 
 \i()iM)f Her Majesty's ( Joverinnent to cancel th»' a|tiiointnient of the 
 lliilisli Ailiilrator, and to withdraw iVoni the arhitration at the close of 
 lio term fixed tor tlie adjonrnnient, nidess the dilVe'.cnce which has 
 arisen between the two (ioverninents as to the claims for indirect losses 
 Lt'cricd to in tlu^ note Which the undcrsi'^iied had tlu' honor to address 
 [oCninit Sclopis on tin' loth of Apiil shall have been removed. 
 
 [ Iiii'lti.-inc '.i ill No. 7I>. 1 
 (hncnil iSchenrh' to /vVn7 (h'<(iirill<: 
 
 Li'.iiATioN OF Tin: rMi'i;i) Sta'iks, 
 
 Mvl-oui): 1 have received this evening'' (T.-U) p. ni.) your note of 
 |to (lity's date, coinninnicatino- for the iirtbrmation of my Clovernnient a 
 fojjyofa sketch of dranfi'ht note to be nsed in presentinjitothe Arbitrators 
 i.suimaaryof theirarj;nnienton their»lh instant, snch. (Iran j^ht-notebeinf; 
 l)iis(Ml on a i)roposed application for an adjonrnnient of the arbitration 
 for cijilit months. 
 
 r, shall imniediatelv transmit vosir note !ind the inclosnre bv teloyraph 
 lo3h. Fish. 
 
 I have the honor to be, wit!i the hi.'^hest ( onsi(h'ra1 ion, \o\\v Lordship's 
 hio.st obedient servant, 
 
 Kor.T. C. ^cIM'^'-K. 
 
 I'ij;lit I [on. lOavl (lltANVII.l.K, <ir., ilr., itv. 
 
 [liu'idsi'.rc 1 ill N(i 
 
 •J 
 
 which he reprcscBl 
 
 Karl (InmrViU' i<> (Iiik xtl lSr]i/ii<-l,\ 
 
 FOUEKiN OFl'lCi:, 'JiiiW 10, ISTl'. 
 
 I Sii;: Her IMajesly's ("tovi'ninient nnih'rstand that tln^ (Joverniuenl 
 bftlit' Tiiited States dccliiu^ any a^^reeinent between {\n\ two (lovern- 
 bii'iits. unless the (lovernmont of Her lAfaJesty consent to si<>n the sii)»- 
 ilcMiciital article as altered by the Senate, to which Her ^Majesty's (Jov- 
 liiiiiH'iit have stated their olijections, or nnless they a.uree, withont any 
 Iccliiration as to their doinji' so suh niodo, to take a fnrther step in the 
 Imcccdinjis l>efor<' the Arl)itrators, while a niisiin(lerstandin<.>' exists as 
 lo wluit both partit'S a,t;reed to submit to arbitration. 
 I 31r. Fish states to you that the (Jovernnient of the |Tnit(>d States 
 liivo no j'cason to ask for an adjournment of tii(> arbiti'ation at (Jenova. 
 j The reason which actuated Her ^lajesty's (lovernment in proposing' 
 r, >viis to obtain time for the conclusion ol' an agreement at which both 
 biutiesliad already nearly airived. 
 
 [ Her ^Majesty's (jrovernment will have now to consider what maybe 
 Dip course most consistent with the declarations they have, heretolore 
 liiulo, iiio.st respectful to the Tribunal of Arbitration, and the most 
 |oiuteous to the United States. 
 10 G A 
 
 
 
[.'••I ■. 
 
 
 
 
 i.y 
 
 
 f 
 
 
 •< IV, 
 
 146 CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 The lliitisii Arbitrator will r('])air to (lonevsi, and at the inectinfj ofl 
 tlie Trilmiial the British a^^oiit will be directed to present theui a state { 
 nient to the followinfj- etlect: 
 
 " Her ^Majesty's Government regret to be under the necessity of inform.] 
 in<? the Arbitrators that the ditlerence between lier Majesty's (JoveiiiJ 
 nient and the (Joverninent of the United States, referred to in the mm 
 which accompanied the i>resentation of the IJritish counter case on tliel 
 loth of Ai>ril last, has not yet been removed. Her JNIajesty's Govern 
 ment have, however, been enffajned in nes'()tiations witli the Govern 
 ment of tiie United States, which have continii(?d down to tlie i)rosent| 
 time, for the solution of the dilliculty whi(;h has thus arisen ; and tlitnl 
 do Jiot abandon the hope that, if further time were <;iven for that pin r 
 pose, such a solution niijiiit be foun<l practicable. 
 
 "Under these circumstances, the course which Her ]\IaJesty's Goveii 
 nient would respectfully recjuest the Tribunal to take is, to adjourn tiifl 
 present meeting for such a period as may enable a supplementary conf 
 vention to be still concluded and ratitted between the hij»h contractiii;; 
 parties. , 
 
 "In the mean time, the hij^h contracting parties not bein}>- in accordibl 
 to the subject-matter of the reference to arbitration, Iler ]\Ia.jest,v'J 
 Government regret to tind themselves unable to deliver the written ai I 
 gnment which their agent is directed to put in under the Vth article oil 
 the Treaty, (a'tiiough that aigument has been <luly prepared, and isitl 
 the hanils of their agent,) or to take any other step at the present tinul 
 in the intended arbitration. I 
 
 " It will, of course, be understood by the Tribunal that Iler ]\Ia jest/J 
 (jOvernment(whil(!they would <*onsider the Tribunal tohave fidl powt^rtol 
 proceed at tlie end of the i)eriod of adjcnunment, if the ditlerence lioT 
 tween the high contracting i»arties should then liave been removcill 
 notwithstanding the nondelivery on this day of the argument by tlJ 
 IJritish agent) continue, while re(pu\sting this adjournment, to reservfj 
 all Her Majesty's rights in the event of an agreement not being fninl 
 arrived at, in the same maniuM" as was expressed in the note which ail 
 C()inpanie(l the British Counter Case." 
 
 I have the honor to be, with higli considei'ation, sir, your most olir 
 dieiit, humble servant, 
 
 GKAXVlLLi:, 
 
 [Iiulosui'i,' .') ill Xo. *:!.] 
 
 (iencrnl f<clicncJ: to Eurl (Iranrillc, 
 
 Legation of the lTniteu States, 
 
 London, 'huir 11, ii:'>~2, 
 
 3Iy Lori): I had tl e honor to receive late last night your note olyc? 
 terday, refening to the present state of the negotiations between tliti 
 (Jovernment of the United States and lier [Majesty's Government in rt'l;i 
 lion to tiie proposed su|!pleinentary aitide, or to an adjournment oi'tlifi 
 arbitration at Geneva; an<l informing I'.u that Her .Alajesty's (iovtiii 
 ment will now have t<» consider what may be the course most eonsistciiii 
 with the declarations they havi^ heret(>for(> niiule, most respectlul to llnl 
 Tribunal of Aibitiation, and the most courteous to the United Stiifi'"! 
 Your Jiordship then proceeds to state that the British Arbitrator will 
 repair to Gene\a, where tlu' British Agent, at the meeting of tiu'Triliiij 
 nal, will be directed to jiresciit tlieni a stateaient to the elleet that 
 
JBITRATION. 
 
 at the mectiri};- (J 
 I'seiit tliLMn a .statcj 
 
 iiecossity of inform. 
 Mnjesty's (loveniJ 
 'vroii to in the iKitej 
 •omiter case on tljel 
 L' Majesty's Cio\eni[ 
 < with tlic (lovei'iil 
 wii to the prcseiitl 
 s jirison ; and tlicvl 
 <;iven for that pin | 
 
 r ]\IiiJesty's Oovm 
 e is, to ad.joiiiu tlicl 
 supplementary coiif 
 lie high coutractiiij 
 
 CORRESPONDENCR RESPKCTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 147 
 
 Iditference between the two Govenunents referred to in the note Avliich 
 jacconipani".! the i)resentati()n of the Britisli Counter Case, not havinj*- 
 |l)e('ii removed, altliouj^h neju'otintions to tliat end have been engaged in 
 jaiul continued down to the present time, Her ^Majesty's (lovernment do 
 Lot abiindon the liope that if furtiier time were given for that ])urpose 
 Isnch a soUition might be found ])riU'ticable. And that, under thes(^ 
 |ciicniiistan(;es, the course whicli Her ^Majesty's (lovernment would 
 [respectfully request the Tribunal to take is, to adjourn for such a ])eriod 
 'as iiiiiy enable a supplementary convention to ho still concluded and 
 
 •alitit'd between the high contracting parties. And you further intV)rm 
 |]iie that, in the mean time, the high contracting parties not being in 
 
 I'conl as to the subject-matter of the reference to arbitration. Her 
 
 Majesty's Government regret to tind themselves unable to deliver their 
 kvritteii argument under tli<i A'th article of the Treaty, although that 
 tu'iiument is duly i>repared and in the hands of their Agent, or to take 
 liiiiy other step at the present time in the intended arbitration. And 
 
 ^oii add that it will of couise be understood by the Tribuind that while 
 
 Her .Majesty's Government would consider the Tribunal to have full 
 3t being in accord ii>^R»o\vcr to i)roceed at the end of the period of adjournment, if the dilfer- 
 ion. Her ]MaJest,v'sHeiU'e between the liigh contracting ])arties sliould then have been 
 
 liver tiu^, written ar 
 r the Vth articled! 
 prei)ared, and is itl 
 at the present tiiiiil 
 
 1 that ller:MaJestv'' 
 to have fidl power tJ 
 if the ditference he I 
 ave been I'emovcill 
 e argunuMit by tliJ 
 urnment, to resei'vt| 
 it not being tinal 
 the note wiiicli .uj 
 
 sir, your most obtJ 
 
 Gil AX villi:. 
 
 removed, norwitlistanding the non delivery on that day of the argument 
 S»y the British Agent, they will continue, while re<piesting this adjourn- 
 jiieiit, to reserve all Her iSlaJesty's rights in the event of an agreement 
 'iiig linally arrived at. in the sanu' manner as was expressed in the note 
 l^vliieli accompanied the Uritish Counter Case. 
 This note, my Lord, in its fidl text, I transmitted this moiiiing to my 
 loverntiient at Washington, where I have no dt)ubt it will be received 
 mid considered in the friendly spirit in whi<'li it is intended, and as a 
 fiiiicere eflbrt yet to iirescrve the Treaty between the two countries; and 
 will not fail to communicate to you at the earliest moment the answer 
 ^liich may come from Mr. Fish. 
 1 iiave the honor to be, with the highest consideration, my Lind, your 
 A>i(lsliip's most obedient servant, 
 
 ROUT. C. SCHlvXCK. 
 
 The flight Hon. the F.Ain. GitANVlM.i:. 
 
 Tisu States, 
 i))i, June 11, 1872, 
 :ht your note of ye* 
 ations between tini 
 Government in n'l.i| 
 adJournnuMit of tin 
 r Majesty's (ioveiii 
 rse nu)st consistcii 
 )st respeetl'id to lli 
 
 the I'niled StattJ 
 tish Arbitrator wi: 
 cetinii'of theTiiliiil 
 
 the ellect that tlifl 
 
 ( IiicloMirc (i ill Nd. 7o. ] 
 
 J'J<(ti (iranrillc to (Iciiniil IScliciicI-. 
 
 Von\)l<\y ()l'VU'l],'Jiinr 11, ISTL'. 
 
 i>ni: It may be useful that 1 sliould briefly recapitulate the negotiations 
 ftliich have passed with respect to the supplementary Treaty article in 
 Jtidertliat theic may be a dislinct and connected record oi liiem. 
 
 On tlic Kith of May Her Majesty's Government, although they con- 
 fiidercd that the ])roi»osal of the form of article would come nnue con- 
 veniently from the Cnited States Government, propctscd the draught 
 iiitiele as origimdiy forwarded toyou on that day. 
 
 This diaught aiticle was substantially the same as the draught note. 
 luMiiteichange" of which had Ibi'ined the subjt-ct of ])revioiis corre- 
 lioiwleiice. 
 
 On the L'Oth of May liei- Majesty's Goveriinu'iit learned that the Sen 
 ate had recommended the l*resi<lcnt to negotiate a convention «tn the 
 Stasis of this draiight article, with the substitution oi' two other para- 
 
 
 it-, 'if'T' 
 
. 1, ...'■-' 1"''* ' 
 
 N- I'll;;" 
 
 If. ) .'^■'■^ : . 
 ,• • ■,*'.'■'''.'■■ 
 
 .-m: 
 
 [■■Vsi- ' .' 
 
 
 W^'%r 
 
 ri't:. ■■' 
 
 „, ''^,■ Vr-^::<ir,^: 
 
 - ''•:.•:*■'■■■ ■ ' ' 
 
 1 
 
 14s CORUESPOKDENCE RESrECTING GENEVA AUHITKATION. 
 
 ;>iiiplis for tlu' luiiitli inid iif'tlt itaiajiraplis of the ICiifi'lish «lriiii}j;lir, 
 follows: " WiiereMs tlie llovcrnineut of llcr Jiritaimic .Majesty has con [ 
 tended in tlie recent eorresjiondence witli tlie(iovern«ientot the IJiiitedl 
 States as fono\vs,na(nely: Th.it such indirect chiinis as tliose for the im 
 tional h)sses sta*^ m1 in tlie (Jase presented ou tlie i)art of tlieOoverniiiPntl 
 of tlie United States to the Triliunal of Arbitration at (leneva, to lia\>Hsl 
 been su8taiiie<l by 'the loss in the transfer of the Aine,ri(!an coniineicjal 
 n:arine to the liritish Hay; the enhan(M>d ]>aynients of insnrance; the 
 {>rolonj;ation of the war, and the addition of a lar<i(^ sum to the cosi 
 of the war and the snpjiression of the rebellion 
 
 ■<tlv, were not 
 
 eluded, in fact, in the Treaty of Washinjiton; and further, and sci i 
 ondly, sl»ould not be admitted in principle as <;rowin<>' out of the act; 
 committed by jtarticular vessels, alleged to have been enabled to com 
 mit depredations upon the shippinj^'of a belligerent by reason of such; 
 want of due diligence in the ])erf(U'mance of neutral obli<;ations as thai 
 which is imputed by the LTni ted States to Great Britain; and wheroii! 
 the GovernnuMit of the United States has contended that the saiddaini; 
 were included in the Treaty ; and whereas both Clovei-nments adopt tutl 
 the iuture the [)rincii)le that claims for remote or indire<!t loss(!s sliouldl 
 not l)e admitted as tiie result of tiie failure to observe neutral ol)li;j 
 tions, solar as to declare that it will hereafter j;ui(le the conduct of butj 
 Governments in their relations with each other: 
 
 "Now, therefore, in consideiatioii thereof, t\w President of the U'niti 
 States, by and witli the advice and consent, of the Senate tlicrculj 
 consents that he will make no claim ou the part o'. the United State 
 in respect of indirect losses, as aforesaid, before the Tribunal n 
 Arbitiation at Geneva." 
 
 Her ^Majesty's Government objected, as I informed you in my lettt'in 
 the L'7th of Alay, to the (U'iinition as therein expressed of the principl 
 which both (iovernments are pre])ared to adopt lor the future, as tm 
 vajiue, and proposed the substitution of the wtuds, "of a like natiiiv'Hd 
 for the words, " lor remote or indirect losses.'' and the substitutioiioti 
 the words, "such want of due dilij;eiu'e on the i)art of a ntMUraI."Hi 
 the words, "the I'ailure to observe neutral oblij^ations." 
 
 On th(^ L'iMli of May you communicated to me the substance of 
 telcfiraphic despatch from Air. Fish, statin.i-' that the (Joveinmeiit i 
 the United States declined to aj^ree to these alterations, as the estal 
 iishment of the prin<'iple embodied in the article as assented to by tlie 
 Semite had been its object in adherinj;' to that article. Vou ]i;iil| 
 previously explained to me, on the precolinj; day, that what you cui 
 sidert'd that the Governnu'nt of the United States desired was ll 
 establishment of a f>eneral principle to be api)lied to cases as th( 
 mi<iht arise, and n(»t limited to pailicular cases or circumstances whkli 
 may or nniy not ever occur. 
 
 Her Majesty's Govermnent <lid not pretend that the words suyycstiil. 
 b}"^ themselves, were incajjable of improvement, and nnule anotlni 
 ])roi)osal to you on the .".Otli of Alay, which they trusted would nu'ct tlit| 
 views of both Governments, as follows: 
 
 " Wheivas the Govennnent of Her Hritannic Majesty has c()!it('ii(I(' 
 in the iec<'nt corresponden<'e widi the Government of the United »Stali> 
 as follows, namely : 
 
 "That sin-li indirectl claims as those for the national losses stalcil;: 
 the Case |)i'esent(d on the pait of the Governnu'nt of the United Stall 
 to tlu> 'i'ribunal ol Arbitration at Geneva, to have been sustainol li' 
 • the loss in .he ti.insfer of the American cinnnu'icial marine lo tlr 
 IJritish llii;^ ; th(> eiiii ticed pa\ iiicnl s <»!' insurance ; tin' prolongation nl 
 
 COK 
 
 ii> war ; ai 
 ii|)]>ressioi 
 rcat.N" of ^ 
 uirtcil in ] 
 csscls all( 
 lippin.^' o 
 lie pcribrn 
 United Sta 
 '•And wh 
 that the sa 
 "And wl 
 hat claim.^ 
 Ki adinittei 
 i<;er(Mits n 
 liic (lili,nen 
 i<>ati()iis, s( 
 loiidiict of 
 " Xow, tl 
 IStatcs, by i 
 Incuts that 1 
 ore the Ti 
 Iclassi's of ii 
 On the ;Jj 
 }]. Tliorntoi 
 ly the Sem 
 ji'oposed h} 
 icvcd that, 
 iictory to ll 
 On ithe sa 
 ioni Mi'. F 
 ilfcrcnce o 
 imitation \\ 
 () iii'cvent } 
 )(' allowetl 1 
 i}{Tapli,'' and 
 1st propose 
 |prol)al)le ca 
 ohscrvaticHi 
 >f l)ad faiti 
 incuts wouh 
 llcr Maje 
 !()!' the (lOve 
 oiitained in 
 llcave the ar 
 sonic few wo 
 which Her J 
 tiicy think 
 ]>iiiiciple, vi 
 mciit, heinj; 
 acts of belli 
 intcriiationt: 
 iiiinlc at the 
 li:iviii;X h 
 StatcscnU'i' 
 cuts," llcr } 
 tocliaiiiic it 
 
RIUTKATION. 
 
 Eiijilisli «lraii}j;lir, A 
 
 lie, Miijesty has con I 
 
 iniH'iitot tlie IJiiiteill 
 
 as those tor th(^ iiaf 
 
 bof theOovcrnnipiitl 
 
 at (l(Miova, to liavfl 
 
 inerican coinmcicial 
 
 ;s ot iiisuraiuu^; tliri 
 
 :'<>(^ siiiii to the costr 
 
 liistly, were not iiJ 
 
 (I further, and sci I 
 
 iinji' out of the aots| 
 
 'eii enabled to com 
 
 by reason of suchiii 
 
 I oblijiiitions as tliati 
 
 L'itaiii ; and whcioasl 
 
 that tlie saideliihiisl 
 
 ^•ernincnts adopt fut| 
 
 idireet losses slion 
 
 erve neutral ol»li;iai 
 
 the conduct of butlij 
 
 sident of the Uiiiti'ill 
 the Senate thcrcufl 
 1 the United Stakl 
 re the Tribuiiid ul 
 
 1 yon in uiy letter oil 
 ised of the principlJ 
 or tlie future, as tnj 
 "of a like natiml 
 the substitutioinil 
 rt (»f a neutral."' tui| 
 ns." 
 
 the substance ot'ai 
 
 the (ioveinnieiit oil 
 
 ations, as the estal 
 
 assented to by tliJ 
 
 artich'. Vou M\ 
 
 that what you cniil 
 
 es desired was 
 
 <l to i-ases as tliovl 
 
 ircunistances \\iiid[ 
 
 lie words sufi'ji'estcil 
 and niatle aiiotluJ 
 ited would iiu'ct tliJ 
 
 esty has co!ileii(lfii| 
 >f the United 8tiiuJ 
 
 Mial losses stated;;:! 
 f the United ,Siatt> 
 been sustaiiicti livl 
 I'cial marine to tliJ 
 the iirolon;i'atioiioi| 
 
 COKRESPONDEXCK KESPECTING GENEVA ARBITRATION. 149 
 
 war ; and the addition of a lar<>e sum to the cost of the war and the 
 suppression of the rebellit)n ;' firstly, were not included in fact iu the 
 Crcaty of Wasliingtoii ; and furtiier, iiml secondly, should not bii ad- 
 
 itteil iu princi|)le us jirowin;;- out of tho acts couiinitted by particular 
 
 psscis alleged to have been enabled to commit depredations upon the 
 sliippiii,u' of a belli,i;erent by reason of such a want of due dilij^ence iu 
 lie ]»('itbrinance of neutral o!)lij;ations as that which is im|)uted by the 
 lUiiitcd States to (Jreat Ibitain; 
 
 And wheniiis tlu^ (ioveruun'ut of the United States has couteinh'd 
 Itliat the said claims wer(^ included iu the treaty ; 
 
 ''And whereas both <b>v(!rnuuMits adopt for the future the i)riucii>le 
 bat claims a<>ainst neutrals for remote and indirect losses should not 
 
 admitted as resultin,i>' from the acts of bellijiereuts, which such bel 
 hinei'i'iits amy have been enabled to commit by reason of a w;'.nt of 
 tliio (lili,uence on the i)art of a neutral in the perfornumce of neutral ob- 
 fifjatioiis, so far as to declare that this principle will hereatler j^uide the 
 conduct of both (loveruments in their relations with each other: 
 
 "Xow, therefore, in consideratiou thereof, the President of the United 
 fctates, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate theieof, con- 
 sents that he will make no claim on the part of the United States, be- 
 fore the Tribunal of Arbitration at (leneva, in resju'ct of the several 
 L'lasses of indirect losses hereinbefore enumerated." 
 
 On the olst of i\fay, ller Majesty's (lovernuient weie informed by Sir 
 
 1. Thornton that .Mr. Fish acknowledj^ed that the art^icle recommended 
 
 ^)y the Senate was capable! of improvenu'ut, and thouji'lit that the one 
 
 jiroposcd by Jler Majesty's (lovernment mij^lit also be iniprov«'d, aud be- 
 
 I'vcd that, with suflicient tinu', an a,i>reement could be come to satis- 
 
 ictory to both countries, whi<di have the same object. 
 
 On the same ni<;ht you commuidcated to uie a t,eiejirapliic mes>a,i;e 
 
 IVoni Ml'. Fish, statin,";- that "it is not believed thac there is any such 
 
 [diricience of ol>ject between the two (iovernaienis iu the detinition and 
 
 imitation which each de:;;ires to jtlace upon the lial)il of a neutral as 
 
 to prevent an agreement on the languaj;e in which to express ii, if tiuie 
 
 allowed lor an exchauj^c of views by son u' other means than liu^ tele- 
 
 Igraph,"' and that it api»eared to the l*r«'sident that the Ibrm of artich^ 
 
 last proposed by Jli^r Majesty's (iovernment lelt a larj^e class of very 
 
 IprobiUile cases unprovided for, and that he held (with referen«'e to an 
 
 loltscrvaticHi iu uiy letter to you of the 28th of May) " that the results 
 
 Jot had faith or wilfid misconduct towanls either of the two (lovern- 
 
 [iiicnts would ntncr be the subject <d' pecuniary comjieusation." 
 
 Her Majesty's (Iovernment, in their eariu'st desire to meet tin- views 
 |of the (iovernment of the United States, thereupon made the proposal 
 ontained in my lettei' to you of the .">th instant, the etVect of wliich is to 
 lleave the articles as ])roposed by the St'uate, with the a<ldition merely ot 
 Isoniefew words of detinition, which, if the intention of the Senate was that 
 Iwliich Her Majesty's (loverunu'Ut have bt-en willin,i;' to believe, (thoujuh 
 Itlicy thiidt it iusulliciently expressed,) do not in any way alVect it in 
 |]trin('i|tle, vi/: "TluM'eunde or indirect losses meutictned iu this agree- 
 linent, heiuj;' losses arising' renuttidy or indirectly, aud not (iiri-ctly, Irom 
 lacts of I>(>llip'rents," and of a declaration as to acts of wilfiu \ n)laliou of 
 [international duties, which might either be inserted iu tlif article o'' 
 linade at the time of the exchange (»f ratilicalions. 
 
 Having learnt, on the 7th instaid, that the ( ioveriunent ol' the United 
 [States entertained object i(His to the use of the expression '• ai'isof belliger- 
 lents," ilcr Majesty's (loNcrnnu'iit infornu'd .xou that they were willing 
 |t(Mdiange it to " acts of war." 
 
 
 
 
 ;;:,..'/ 
 
 f m^\ 
 
 Y 
 
 ■•'•:'.- 1 1 
 

 i-:' 
 
 
 ( « -'.f'.A • .■,■■■■ . ',! 
 
 •■I ;, . 
 
 r 1 . v. 
 
 . ((■■■t;. .1' ". -'■ 
 
 " ■ i 
 
 i-'ti^''" 
 
 
 
 •f . 
 
 150 CORllESPONDENCK RKSPKCTIN({ GKNEVA ARHITRATIOX. 
 
 Il'T INraJcsty's (JovoriiiiuMit b('lii'\-<^, tlu'rcforc, that tlicy liiivr met nl! 
 the oltjcctious, so Car as tli(\v Iiiivci Ikmmi iiiloniuMl of tliciii, wliicli li;i\> 
 l)('(Mi Iroiii time to time advanced to tlu> snjiji'dstions wliirii tlicy Imv,. 
 made, and tliat this recapitulation of tin; nc^i'otiatioii shows that niilcsv 
 Ilei' Ma.i' sty's (ioveinmeiit have erred in their vi(^\v of lli(> piobabh' in 
 tentioii of the Senate, tile two (iovernnients are substantially ayiccil, 
 or that, if tiiere is any dilVerence bctwecMi tiieni in i)rin(!iple, it is rediicni 
 to the sinalh'st i)ropoi'tions. 
 
 On tlie other hand, th»^ oI>jections wliich IFer Majesty's ( Joverniiicni 
 entertain and have expressed to tlie hMif;ua,u(' of the ainendinents iiiikIJ 
 by tlie Senate, are founded upon reasons to which they attach tl 
 .ijreatest importance, though they think it jtossible, that the Senate di 
 not intend to use tinit lan,i>ini.i;'e in the sense which, acccu'dinj^- to tl 
 vi(>w of Her 31ajesly-s (iovernnient, the words ju'operly bear. 
 
 The (loverinnent of the Hnited States havii stated, in tlu^ tele<4ra|ilii(| 
 ii>essa^i^ from Mr. Fish to whicli I have alieady referred, thatth(>re; 
 some cases not provided for in the words snjLifiCsted by Jler IMajest 
 (lovernment on the .'>(Uh of .May. If the (lovernment of the I'liittill 
 States are of opinion that tliese cases are not coveicd by the last p 
 j)osed form of article, and will state what are llu^ cases in (pu'stidnj 
 Iler Majesty's (JoverunuMit cannot but think that the two (lov 
 ernnuMds mij^ht i)robably ayrei" upon a Ibrm of words which W()iilil| 
 meet tliein, withoid beinji' open to tiie objections which they have IVI 
 to the wording' of the article as pro])osed by the Senate. Jler Majestv' 
 (5o\«'rnnu'nt have never put forward their woids as an ultiinatuni, mih 
 they will be willinj;' to consider, at tli!" jtroper time, other woi'<ls, if ;iii[ 
 adjournment is afiree<l upon. 
 
 1 have mu"h jtleasure in takiujn' advantaii'e of the ])reseid()ccasjiiii| 
 to retpu'st you to convey to the (iovernment of the llnited States tl 
 appreciation by Iler Majesty's (iovernment of the frank and friemi! 
 declaration contained in your ItMter to me of the (!th instant, icsijectm 
 the last paraiiiaph of the diauuht article. 
 
 Iler .Majesty's (lONcrunu'nt had ncxcr su])posfMi thai the (loverniiniit| 
 of the rnited States ba<l dillered IV(un Iler Ma|<'siy"s (iovernnient 
 the sense attachecl to that i>ortion of the article, but tlu'y look ii|iiiii| 
 the declaration made in your letter as an additional proof of tl 
 anxiety, which they are coniident is shared by both (iovernments, i 
 brin,uin,i>' tiie lU'ji'otiatiou to an honorable and successful issue. 
 
 I have the honor to be. with the hij^hest consideration, sir, your i 
 
 1111- 
 
 obedieid, hiuuble servant. 
 
 (ilJANNIM.K 
 
 No. 71. 
 
 Mr. I'isli tl) <ii iicrid iScliciicI:. 
 
 ri'ci.-iMiii. I 
 
 Di'.i'Ai.'TMiiN'r ov Statio, 
 Wdsltiiit/toii, J line l.'>, ISTi', 
 
 Tele;;raph and write to Davis. Ibttel llean IJivajU'c, (iene\a. ;is 
 follows : 
 
 "See my tele^ranis to Schenck of second and uiidh dune. II" ai'uii 
 ii.i'nts are lileil in y-ood faith, without olfiMisive notice, we will assent tm 
 their motion for adjcuirnnu'ut." 
 
lRHITRATIOX. 
 
 (! KAN villi;. 
 
 CORRKSPONDENCK RESI'KCTING GliXKVA ARIJITRATION. 151 
 
 ZS'o. 7.">. 
 Mr. J)((eis to Mr. Fi.sh. 
 
 ['rnlcgnun.] 
 
 (iKNKVA, June 15, 1871-*. (Received nt O.oO j). in.) 
 Our iir^'iiiniMit pn^siMiteiL Teiitenleii ])reseiits note in loria almost 
 |il('iiti(!al witJi (Iraiivillc's note of lOtli to Sc5lieii('.k, ol' wliicli you 
 liiive copy, and says lie is instruetcMl to withiiold IJritisIi arf>iiiuent. 
 riibimal adjonrns till INfonday I'or eonsultation on our side. 
 
 No. 7(5. 
 
 Mr. rish to Mr. Doris. 
 ['rislef^iiini.j 
 
 JJkpaut:\ii!;nt of Si'Aje, 
 
 WaNliuujton, r/nnc 18, 1872. 
 II' there is to be an adjournment, let it be not beyond first .January, 
 ko as to allow time lor n Treaty, it one be a^^reed upon, to be submitted 
 [o the Senate in December, and tliereal'ti'r ibr the necessary le<;islation 
 h'spcetinf'' fisheries, ass(^ssors, «S:c. The rresi<lent sees no objection to 
 kiicli adjournment, if asked for by tlu^ defen(bints, and iH)thin}jf objec- 
 [ioiiable shall liavc been presented. Vcui and Counsel will understand, 
 and, if necessary, can say, that there can bo wo extra session of tlu; 
 Soiiale ealle<l; un<l there will be no extra session in ALireh. 
 
 No. 77. 
 Mr. Davis to Mr. Fish. 
 
 [T.ilc-friilln.] 
 
 ClKNKVA, June 1!), 1872. (Ueceived -L."*!) p. ni.) 
 
 Tribiuial will this moruiuf;' make deidaration rectitiujj;' Jb'itish motion 
 I'or iidjournr cut, and reasons j-iven for nudviufjf it, namely, the dilfer- 
 ["iK't's iu'tween the (lovernnu'id^s as to eompi'tency of Tiibunal to deter- 
 mine the three elasses of indirect claims, and then continues: 
 
 'The Arbitrators <lo iu)t i>ropose to express or imply any opinion upon 
 llu'pnint thus in dill'erence between the two (lovernnu'nts as to the inter- 
 jiK'tatioii orellect of the Treaty, but it seems to them obvious that the 
 Substantial object of the adjournment must l)i' to f>iv(^ the two (lovei'U- 
 |ii('iitsaM opportunity of determinini'' whether the claims in (pu-.^ition shall 
 hi shall not be submitted to the decision of the Arbitrators, and that any 
 ilill'erence between the two (lovernin(>nls on this i)oint may make the 
 lidloiniiMient unproductive of any useful ell'ect, and alter a d lay (»f 
 ViMii.v iiiiHiths, «lurin,i;' wliiidi both nations may l)e kept in a state of 
 jiiiiiil'id suspense, may end in a resnlL which it is to be jMcsuau'd 
 fiotli (lovernmiMits would e(pially deplore, that of niakin<;' this arbiti'a- 
 fioii wholly al)oi'live. Tliis l)eiu^' s(», the Arbitrators tiiiiik it ri;;iit to 
 
 mm 
 
 
 i:i 
 
 • w 
 
 

 152 C(>KKKf<roNUEXCK KESPECTiNG (;k\i:va akuitkation. 
 
 :k,L;- 
 
 state that aCtor tlio most caivl'iil ]H'insal of all that lias boon ui';;t'(l ()|| 
 the, ])art of the (Jovcrninciit of tlii' I'liitiMl States in lespect of tlics^l 
 elaiiiis, they have arrived, individually and colleetively, at the eoiidiif 
 sioii that theseclaiiiisdo not (;()iistitiite, upon tliei)rinciplesorinternati()iiiil 
 law applicable to such cases, {^ood foundation for an award of coniiu'iisnl 
 fion or computation of damaji'es between nations; and should, ui)on sud 
 principles, be uholly excluded from the consideration of the Tribiuial iii| 
 makin.n' its award, even if there were no disajiieenu'Ut between the twn 
 (lovernments as to th(^ competeiu'y of the Tribunal to decide then'dn, 
 'With ii view to the settlement of the other claims, to tlui consideratioil 
 of which by the Tiibunal no exception has been taken on the partuff 
 Her JJiitannii' IMajesty's (lovernment, the Arbitrators have thou,i>litit 
 desirable to lay before tlu^ i)arties this expression of the views tliini 
 have formed upon the question of ])ubli(! law involved, in order tlintj 
 after this declaration by the Tribunal, it may be <'onsider'i<l by tlif| 
 (JoveriinuMit of the United States whether any course can l)e adoptwl 
 respect in<;' the lirst-mentioned claims which would relieve the Tribunal 
 from the necessity of decidiufj upon the present application of Her liii 
 tannic .Majesty's Governnu'iit." 
 
 No. 78. 
 " Mr. Ih(i-i.s to Mr. Fi.sh. 
 
 ['I'<']f^riiiii.] 
 
 (Jeneva, 'fitiie 1!), 1872. (IJeceived ar (i p. in.) 
 
 The Counsel wiite me as follows: 
 
 " We ixvo. of the opinion that the annouiuMMiieiit this day made bytlitl 
 Tribunal must be received by the I'nited States as deteiininativi^ of it>| 
 Jud;iiiient upon the (luestion of i)ublic law invohed, up(m which (li 
 l'nite<i States have insisted upon takinii' the opinion of the Tribuiiii 
 AVe a<lvise, therelbre, that it slionld be submittc(l to, as i)reclu(liii,:i' tliJ 
 propriety ol" further iiisistiiiu' ujjoii tlu^ claims covere<l by this dcclaiaf 
 tion of '"le Tribunal, an<l that the United States, with a view of iii;iiii| 
 taiiiiii<i' (he due course of the arbitration on the other claims witlioii 
 adjoiivnmeiit, should announce to the Tiibunal that the said claims cdvi 
 ercd by its oi>iiiion will not be I'urther insisted u]>oii belbrellie TiilMum 
 by the United Slati's, juid may be exchidi'd from all consideration liv| 
 the Tribunal in makiii.i;' its awr.rd."' 
 
 DAVIS. 
 
 Xo. 7*». 
 
 Mr. I'lsli to (Icnvral Schoulc, 
 [T.'l.'.UTam.] 
 
 ])E1'A1!TMENT OK STATE, 
 
 \Vu.sliin()l(iii, June "2'2, \>''l-. 
 Send follow in/.; I'y telejiraph, and also by mail, uitliout delay, to |);ivi> 
 (ieneva : 
 
 [.!/>•. Fish io Mr. J)ai'!s.] 
 
 "Your telejiia 111 of I!tth informs me that the Tribunal ha.s made a dcol 
 laratioii statin*; that the Arbitrators have arrived at the conclusion llm 
 
 I. 
 
KMUTHA'riON. 
 Iins been iirjicd 
 
 ill 10SlKH',t of Wu'fA 
 
 vcly, jit tlio ('oiicliif 
 i|)los(»fint('riiati()iiii 
 award of coiiiiiciisiil 
 1(1 should, upon siiij 
 II of tlui Tribunal ill 
 ;'nt bctwcou tlie twn 
 
 to <locidi» tli(M('oii.| 
 to tlic <!Oiisid(M;ttii 
 taken on the partofl 
 N»rs liave thoii,nlitii 
 1 of the views tlicvi 
 >lvod, in onhM- liniij 
 
 considered by tlicj 
 rse can be adoptwl 
 relieve the Tribunal 
 lication oi' Her JJij. 
 
 I'ceived at (5 ]>. iii,j 
 
 his (hiy made by tliJ 
 
 leterniinative of itJ 
 
 il, upon which tliJ 
 
 :)n of the Tribuiiiilj 
 
 i>, as j»r('('hi<liiij>' tliti 
 
 cd by this (b'clai;i| 
 
 illi a view of iiinii 
 
 Iter claims witlioiitl 
 
 he said claims cdvl 
 
 before the Tiibiiiia 
 
 1 consideration lui 
 
 DAVIS. 
 
 OK 8tati% 
 
 ;ii, rJiinc'2'J., ISTl', 
 
 loiit delay, to Daviv 
 
 nal has made a dec 
 the conclusion tliiitl 
 
 CORHESPONDENCE RESPECTINQ GENKVA ARBITRATION. 153 
 
 tdiissof the claims set forth in the Case presented in behalf of the United 
 States do not constitute, upon tiie principles of international law appli- 
 calile to such cases, a ^'ood foundation for an uward of cotnpeiisiition or 
 conipiitation of damages between nations, and should, upon such |)rinci- 
 l)les, he wholly excluded from the consideration of the Tribunal in making 
 lij) its award. 
 
 "You also inform me that the Counsel of this Government before the 
 rrihniial at Geneva have advised in writii!}; that they are of opinion 
 ^liattlie announcement thus made by the Tribunal must be received by 
 
 le United States as determinative of its Jiid;>nient upon the question 
 }f i)ublic law involved, upon which the United St ites have insisted upon 
 lakiiiji tlie opinion of the Tribuiml ; that the Counsel advise, therefore, 
 [liat this jadfiinent be submitted to as piecludin;'' the i»ropriety of 
 itntlier insisting*,' upon the claims coveivd by the declaration of the 
 [I'ribiiiial; and that the United 3tates, with a view of maintainin}; the 
 Juo course of arbitration on the other claiins, without adjournment, 
 [iliould announ(!e its opinion that the claims referred to by the Tribunal 
 nil not be further insisted upon by the United States, and may be ex- 
 |;lu(Ie(l from its consideration by the Tiibnnal in inakinj;' its award. 
 
 "1 have laid your tele;;Tams before the President, who directs me to 
 ^ay that he accepts the declaration of the Tribunal as its Judgment upon 
 
 (|iiestion of public law, which he had felt that the interests of both 
 joveniments required should be decided, and for the determination of 
 vliicli he had felt it important to present the claims leferred to for th*^ 
 purpose of taking; theopinion of tlie Tribunal. 
 
 This is the attainment of an end which this Government had in view 
 III the putting forth of those (tlaiins. We liad no desire for a pecuniary 
 luaid, bat desired an expression by the Tribunal as to the liability of a 
 peiitral for claims of that charactei'. The President, therefore, further 
 kcccpts the opinion and advice of the Counsel as set lortli above, and 
 juthorizes the announcement to the Tribunal that he accepts their declu- 
 latioii as determinative of their judgment upon the important qnestion 
 If public law upon which he had felt it his dnty to seek the ex|)ression 
 If their oiiinion; and that in a(;cordaii(;e with such Judgment and 
 jpiiiioii, from hencetbrth he regards the claims set forth in the Case pre- 
 
 eutetl on the part of the United States for loss in the transfer of the 
 
 Uueiican commercial marine to the British tiag, the enhanced pay- 
 lieiitof insurance, and the prolongation of the war, and the addition of a 
 luge Slim to the cost ot the war, ami the suppression of the rebellion, 
 Is adjudicated and disposed of ; and that, consequently, they will not 
 fci' tuitlier insisted upon before the Tribunal l>y tlie United States, but 
 [re henceforth exclude<l from its consideration by the Tribunal in making 
 ts award." 
 
 No. 80. 
 
 Mr. Davis to Mr. Fish. 
 
 [Telegruni.] 
 
 Geneva, June 25, 1872. (Received at 8 p. m.) 
 t'ouiisel write me regarding the statement sent Schenck for you to-day. 
 'Weeoiicnr in the form of communication to the Tribunal of the action 
 If our Government which you propo.se to make." 
 11 fi A ■ 
 
 ^.MJm 
 
 s* 
 
 X i-m 
 
 h 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 r-)lM 
 
 ff, ; -^ - 
 
 ■f V. ' 
 
 t, -•I - 
 
 <■' -fi ■ 
 
 ' •■/t: 
 
 "'^■.'5>/ 
 
 'I's^ ■ 
 
 t rJTi 
 

 ■,'J- 
 
 154 COKIIKSPONDEXCE RESPECTING GEN'EVA ARBITRATION. 
 
 \ No. 81. 
 
 'I -', - ' ■ ■ . 
 
 General Schcnelc to Mr. FLsh. 
 
 [T.-lf'rrinn.] 
 
 London, Jane lilJ, 1872. (Reeeivetl at 11 a. m.) 
 Dcivis tolegr.iphs as follows : 
 
 Mr. J)aris to Mr. Fish. 
 
 \ 
 
 "Af tlu> (JonConMico (ionvciuMl tin's dity [Juno 2~}] by Connt Sdopis, [I 
 vSiiitl tlio (Iccliiiiitioii riiatle Ity tlic riibmiiil, iiidiviiltiiilly and colled ivelyj 
 rcspccliii^i' tlic ('liiiins inrst'iiteil Uy tin: United States for the award oftlifl 
 TiiiHinal for, liist, the losses in (lie ti'ansfer of the Aaierieaii eoiiinu'icia 
 marine to theliiitish ila^'; second, the eiihaticed paynxMit of iiisni'aiii!t';| 
 and third, the piolon^atajn of the war, and the additii>M of a lar^esinr 
 t«) the cost of the war and the snppression of the reltellion, is acccptwll 
 by the President ol the United JStates as deteriniinitive of their jiuljif 
 nient npon the important (piestion of pnblic law involved. The A;,f('iit| 
 of the United Stales is aiitlKM izcd to say that conse(piently the al)»vef 
 incniionetl claims will not be further insisted upon before the TriUiiiin 
 by (he United States, and may he excluded IVom all consideration in aiijl 
 award that may la> made. To this LiU'd Tenterdeii replied : ' 1 will iiiforinl 
 my (Jovernment of the <leclaration made by the Arbitrators on the liltkl 
 instant, and of the statement now made by the Ajient of the Ui;iteil| 
 States, and request tiieir instructions.' The Tribunal tiieii adjoinroil 
 to Thursday at 11, to enable him to coiumuiiicate by telegraph with Lij| 
 Governuieut." 
 
 \i^ 
 
 1 l: ■ 
 
 No. 82. 
 
 Mr. Schenck to Mr. Fish. 
 
 [Telegram.] 
 
 London, June 27, 1872. (Received at 12 in.) 
 Davis telesrapbs mo to send you the following: 
 
 [Mr. Paris to Mr. Fish.] 
 
 " Lord Tenterden will say this day to Tribunal, Her Majesty's Govern 
 inent tinding the communication on the jiartof the Arbitrators recordcil 
 ill tiie protocol of tiieir proi;e<!(lin;;s of tlie 10th instant nothing to wliicli 
 tliey cannot assent consistently with their vieiv of theinter[)retatioit ain!! 
 effect of the Treaty of Washington, hitherto maintained by them; ainiL 
 being informed of thestatement made on tho2oth instant by the Ageiitol 
 the United States, that the several claims particularly mentioned in tbati 
 statement will not be further insisted upon before the Tribunal by tlifl 
 United States, an«l may be ex<!liidcd from all consideration in any awail' 
 that may be made, and assuming that the Arbitrators will, upon sink 
 statement, think tit now to dectlare that the said several claims are, amlL 
 I'rom henceforth will be, wholly excluded from their consideration, aiiiil 
 will embody such <lecla>ation in their protocol of this day's proceedin;*! 
 they have instructed the undersigned, upon this being done, to reqiiestl 
 leave to withdraw the application made by him to the Tribunal on tliJ 
 
.RBITBATION. 
 
 ceived at 11 a. in.) 
 
 1 by Count S(;lo|)is, 1 
 liilly iiiid colU'ctivflvJ 
 s tnrtlu', a\viir(l()l"tli(| 
 V.uu'ri(!aii eomiiu'rcial 
 lyiiMMit of iiisiUiiiuu'; 
 (litioii of a lai};i' siimi 
 ivtit'lli.)!!, is acccptcdl 
 illative ot their jiKijf 
 iivolved. Tim Ajjciitl 
 ise(iueiitly tlu' siUovej 
 I before tlie Trihmiiil 
 I coiiisideratioii in iiiiji 
 epiieil : ' 1 will inrorinl 
 H)itrators on the l!)tl;l 
 \jj;eiit of the Uiiiteiil 
 )mial then adjoiuTeiil 
 by telegraph with liiJ 
 
 Received at 12 m.) 
 
 er Mnjesty's Govern 
 Arbitrators recordcill 
 itiit nothing to wli 
 ieinteri)retatioiianiii 
 taiiied by theni ; aiiiil 
 .Stan t by the Agent oil 
 •ly mentioned in tbatl 
 
 the Tribunal by tlif| 
 eration in any awail 
 itors will, upon smtl 
 vend claims are, amlf 
 ir consideration, ai 
 
 is day's i)rocee«liii;;j.| 
 eing done, to reqiifji 
 
 the Tribunal on tlifl 
 
 CORRESPONDENCK KESPECTING GENEVA AKHITUATION. 155 
 
 ITitli instant for such an a<1jounitii<'nt as niigbt ('nable a supplementary 
 [■oiiviMilioii to be <-()nelii<led and ratified between the High (.Jontra<'ting 
 ';irli('s, ii"<l f** requeist leave* lodelivi'r the printed • 'giiment now in the 
 Sounds of the uiidersijjrneil, which has biM'ii pi'epaie> on the part of Iler 
 Jiiitaniiic .Miji'sly's (iiiveniiiieiit, under the fiflh 'licleof the Ti'eaty. 
 p.Villi icrereiKH' to the other (Maims to tiie ('onsideraiion of which, by the 
 riihiiiial, no exception has been taken on the part of her Majesty's 
 (ioveiiiment." 
 
 No. 83. 
 Mr. Davis to Mr. Fish. 
 [Tolcgmiu.] 
 Geneva Uim 21, 187L'. (Itecoived at .'{.4;") p. m.) 
 
 British {irgiiment tibni. Arhiiration uoes on. 
 
 
 m. 
 
 
 -^^M 
 
 f 
 
 m 
 
 I' 
 
 u 
 
 }iM 
 
 [ 
 
 H^^m 
 
 H 
 
 m 
 
 1 
 
 fm 
 
 \ 
 
 1 
 
 '{M^M 
 
 
 ^ Vv'^^B 
 
 «.; 
 
 |;f^ 
 
 w 
 
 •'*' 'i^ 
 
 SX'. 
 
 -' ".'^m 
 
 hi; 
 
 '■ ■ M 
 
 W' 
 
 ■'> '■-■iwi 
 
 i^'' 
 
 
 ■rhf 
 
 Its -J 
 
 ft