The New York Herald Newspaper, May 15, 1872, Page 10

w » THE TREATY. CONTINUED FROM THIRD PAGE. pri, 7863; 70% July, 1863; 24th August, 1863; apr eptember, 1883, and 28d October, 1863, Mr. Adams presented to Lord Russell a rertes of definite claims made against the govern- ment of tits country by particular American citi- vens, in respect of ships and property Pye am to | them, ahd eaid to have been destroyed by the Ala- mu, intiinating in his letter of the 28d of October “bat bis g@oVernameut must continue to insist that Great Britain has made itself RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGES which She perceful, law-abiding citizens of the United States sustain by the depredations of the vessel called the Alabaina, He added (in an im- portant passage containing the fiyst suggestion of arbitration, a8 a mode of thereafter solving the question) » In repeating this conclaston, however, it is not to be stood that the United Stites incling to act dogmati aspirlt of litigation. They fully comprehend ni navoidably reciprocal gplev ences must spring up from the divergence of the policy of the two coun regard to the presevet insurrection. For these reasons 1am Snstructed to say that they frankly. conters themselve: unwilling to regard the present hour as the most fa able toa enlin and candid examination by elther party of the tacts or the principles involved in cases like the one now in question. Though indulging a firm conviction of the correctness of their position, tm regard to this and other claims, they declare themselves disposed at ail times hereafter, as well as now, t consider in the fullest’ manner evidence and the arguments whieh Her government may incitne to proffer in refutation of it, and in case of an Im. possibility to arrive at ay common conclusion T am di rected tosay there ts no fair and equitable form of con- ventional arbitrament or reference to whieh they will not be willing to submit. Enteftaining these views, I crave permission to apprise Your Lordship that Ihave received dircedons to-continue (@ present to your notice clatms of the character heretofore advanced, Whenever they arise, and to furnish the evidence on which they rost, as 1s Customary fm such cases, in older to guard against possible ultimate failure of Justice trom the absence of it ln a later letter of Ist October, 1863, Mr. Adams, while presenting other similar demands in respect of property destroyed by the Florida, spoke of the claims growing out of THE DEPREDATIONS OF THE ALABAMA and other vessels issuing from British ports, On the 2th January, 1864, he presented another simi- lar claim by the owners of the Sea Bride, cap- tured by the Alabama, and at later dates the par- ticnlars were transmitted by him of certain claims made by persons whose See, was alleged to bave been destroyed by the Shenandoah. On the 7th of April, 1865, when the war was con- sidered by him as actually or virtually at an end, Mr, Adame transmitted to Lord Russel! certain re- ports of depredations committed upon the com- merce of ‘the United States by the Shenandoah, and added :— “Were-thero any reason to belicv: carried on in the ports of Mer Maje Kingdon and its dependencies to maintain and ex systematic de- the commerce of a friend)y people had ould -not be ander the patoial necessity of announcing to Your Lord- ship the ¢act that my government cannot avoid entailing upon the government of Great Britain the responsibility for this damage,” and he proceeded to speak of the injury that might yet be Impending from the part which the British seamer City of Ricumnond had hat! in being sul fered to at the operations TRANSPORT WITH IMPUNITY from the port of Londen men and supplics, to place them on beard of the French-built steam ram Olinthe, alias Btoerkodder, alias ‘wall, which had, through a con- tinuously frandulent. Sepang succeeded in deluding sey- eral governments of Burope and in escaping from this Lemésphere on its errand of mischief to the other. He then went on to complain that by reason ofa ferlee of acts (the furnishing of vessels, arma- ments, Supplies and men), which he contended to ‘De almost wholly attributable to Great Britain or to British citizens, the entire maritime commerce of the United States was in course of being trans- ferred, and had already, to a great extent, over to Great Britain, belligerent chareeter of to be the main end original source of all this mis- chief, adding In view ofall these circumstances, Iam instracted, while ingisting‘on the protest heretofore solemnly entered agalret that Proceeding «@ ¢, the recognition of Southern erency), further repereny to represent to Your iship that.-in the opinion of my government, the reands on which her Majesty's government have rested eit defence against the responsibil incarred in the for the evils that have fol- might have hitherto been v by @ practical reduction of i a port heretofore temporarily held by the insur- er Kv is to. be observed that, although the general injury to the commerce of the United States is largely referred to iu this letter, Mr. Adams ad- vances passed wauner hereinbefore stated lowed, however strong the: considered, have. now tailed NO NEW CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION ou thator any other account (except for captures made by the Shenandoah) agaiust Her Majesty's verninent. He even intimates that the par. ioular claim for the captures by the Shenandoah ‘would not then have been made if his govern- ment could have felt assured that no further opera of the like nature would take place. 6 argument,.in the course of which (on May 4, 1866) Lord Ruseell observed that he could never admit that the duties of Great Britain toward the United Btates were to be measured by the losses which the trade and commerce of the United States might have sustained, and said the question then really overnment to as- sume or be liable to. a responsibility for conduct which Her Majesty's government did all in their comes to. this:—"ls Her Majesty's power to-prevent and to punish /'’—a responst- ity which Mr. Adams, on the rt the United States government, in Have you considered’ to what this responsibility would amouné? Great Britain would become thereby answerable for every ship that may have left a British port and have been found afterwards used by the Confederates.as a ship of war. Nay, more— for every canmon and every musk used by the Confederates on board any 8! ‘ar, if mapafac- tured in a British workshop. To which. Mr. Adams replied (May 2), 1865) by a recapitulation of nine jae which, he said, he had desired to embody in ot glace arguments. These points, beginning Ww THE RHOOGNITION OF SOUTHERN BELLIGERENCY on the high seas, aud alleging this belligerency to have been in fact created after the recognition by means derived from Great Britain, he mentioned under seventh,head :— The burning and destroying on the ocean a large number of large merchant Vessels and very large amount of property belonging to the people of the United States. ‘The eighth and ninth heads were thus worded :— Fighth—That,in addition to this direct injury the action of the Britieh bulit, mauned and a vessels has had the indirect effect of driving from the sea a lnrge portion of the commercial ‘marine of the United States, and toa corresponding extent enlarging that ot Great Britain, thus enabling one portion of the British people to derive au unjust advantage from the wrong committed on a triendly nation by another portion. Véinth—That the injusies thus received by a country which haymeanwhile sedulously endeavored to perform | all its obligations, owing to the impertection of the trwal means at) to prevent them, us well as the unwilling- ness to seek more stringent, powers, arc of £0 grave a na- ture as in reason and justice to constitute a valid claim for reparation and indemnification Later omin the letter Mr. Adams 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 the trade and commerce of the United States may have sustained. To which I would ask permission to reply that no such rile was ever — desired. treaty standard for the measurement seem to be framed on the busis of the clear obligations themselves, and the lowes that spring from the imperiect erformance of them; and thus {tts that, whatever may e the line of argminent I pursue, 1 am’ compelled ever tw return to the one conclusion—t nation tat recognizes a Power as & belligerent betore it had yu a vessel, and became I the sole source of all the belligerent characters it h T possessed on the ovean, Must be regarded.ag re- * ible tor all the damage that has ensued from that ¢ to the commerce of a Power with which it was un. ele most sacred of obligations to preserve amity and It will be seen that although the general proposi- tions of this letter might be wide chough to'Incinde THE LARGEST IMAGINABLE DEMANDS, At nevertheless abstains from putting forward any new claim ina detiniteor tangible form, and pur- ports rather to recapitulate and adhere to the tenor of the preceding correspondence, And in this sense it was evidently understood by Lord ep le in iss answer of the goth of August, 0 the KUgROStiC contained in Mr. Adams" former letter of te eo "former letter of the 23d of October, 1863, and whi Sechning either to maxe fo reparation and compensation for. the res made by the Alaiama, or to refer the qu hes dil any foreign States, offered a reference to a commis: sion of all claims arising during the late civil war, Mich the two Fowers should agree to refer to the eommissioners. And egain on the ith ¢ el Sepentadees Uetober he There are, I conceive, many claims upon whieh the two | Powers would agree there were fair subjects ot . tion before commindoners: but | think sou isnot Net ceive that, If the United States cover Pose fe refer claims ‘arising Out oF the ay he Alabama and Shenandoah to the comiissioners, the answer of Her Majesty's government inust be inconne tent with the wh Poa have maintained, in conformity with tl Teeth Geet, by four govern mast in Ci he I sh be chligea Suawer to such aD :=<For acts of Her Majesty's fubjects comualted out of thie St done vad Meet thelr fenteph, the govermment r Majesty are not re. sponsible, &¢, On the 2ist of October Mr. Adame addressed a long letter with numerous suggestions to Lord Russell with reference to be THE SHENANDOAR, alleging that vessel to have been received by the authorities at Melbourne with knowledge of au Niewal equipment in this country, and insist- Ing on that account that: Her ‘Majesty's goy- ernment assumed a responsibility for all t damage which it had done,” and wich flown to the latest accounts, it was stil doin, to the peaceful commerce of the United States on the ocean. A pafticular claim by the owners of 4 ship captured by the Shenandoah was pre- beatey With this letter. In his letter to Lord Claren- § hed of the 2ist November, 1865, Mr. Adams, under e instructions of his government, declined Lord tissoness oak oe a limited reference to com- ers Of sus’ a cond oeiee aoe Clans as the two governments Adherei: ship has thoughe nt, at ¢ that feeb onl a and teasonabh instructed to say full answer te itis Sordenige kil Ag iw giving @ ‘The whole result of this e« 1 the change of administration ho tie weontee 4 A800, May be thys summed rye bios lors J. That notwitiwianding wontinuar ¢ from con- COM UR EB, tries, in | whose recognition of the tne insurgents he alleged letter led to a prolonged controversial of e cabe of Portugal, acral ps firmly and justly declined. NEW YORK HERALD, WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 1872. ‘RIPLE SHEET. 7 extending over a vast runge of subjects, from the | Seqoraitien of the belligerency of the Southern States downwards, no claims against this country were ever defined, formulated or presented on the rt of the United States, onony for the specific | losses of American citizens, arisin ture of their vessels and property by the Alabama, { Florida and Shenandoah, and that no sych form of expression a8 “the Alabama claims’ hud ever, | down to this time, been used to describe even the | claims in respect of those captures, much less to comprehend any more VAGUE AND INDRFINATE DEMANDS of indemnity to the general mercantile or national interests of the United States, On the accession of Lord Derby (0 power Mr. Seward, ina despateh to | . Adams, dated the 27th of August, 1886, thus de- | fined the claims, which it had been the object of the United States to press in the preceding corre- | spondence, and of whieh he now again instructed | Mr. Adams ta urge the settiement :— | ou will herewith | claims of citizens of the United | ‘states against Great Britain. for damages | which were suffered by them during the period of | | our late civil war and some months by means of | depredations upop our commercial marine, com- mitted on the high seas by the Sumter, the Ala- bama, the Florida, the Shenandoah and other | ships’ of war, which were built, manned, armed, equipped and fitted ont to British ports, and despatched therefrom by | or through the agency of British subjects, and which were harbored, sheltered, provided and fur- nished, as occasion required, during their devas- | tating career, in ports of the realm, or in ports of | British cotonies, in nearly all parts of the globe. | (he table is not supposed to be complete, but it | presents such a recapitulation of the claims as the } | evidence so tar received In this department | enables me to furnish. Deficiencies will be supplied hereafter. Most of the claims have been from time to time brought by yourself, as the President divected, to the notice of Her | Majesty's government, and made the subject of | earnest and continued appeal. That appeal was intermitted oniy when Her Majesty’s government, receive & summary of after -elaborate discussions, refused either to | allow the glaims or to refer them to | joint claims cofimission, or to submil the question of liability thereln to any form at arbitration. The United States, on the other hand, have all the time insisted upon the claims as just and valid. This attitude has been, and doubtlessly continues to be, well understood by Her Ma- | Jesty’s government. ‘The considerations which | inclined this government to suspend, for a time, the. pressure Cs the claims upon the attention of Great Britain are these :—The political exoitement in Great Britain which arose during the progress of the war, and which did pot immediately subside at its conclusion, seemed to render that period somewhat unfayvor- able to a deliberate examination of ‘the very grave questions which the claims involved. The princi- es upon which the claims are asserted by the United States have been explained by yourself in an_ elaborate correspondence with Earl Russell and Lord Clarendon. In this respect there seems to be no deficienc; to be supplied by this department. It is the Presi- dent's desire that you now cat the attention of Lord Stanley to the claims in a respectful, but car- nest, manner, and inform him that, in the Presi- dent’s judgment, a settlement ‘of them has become urgently necesaary to a re-establishment ofentirely | friendly relations between the United States and Great Britain, This government, while it thns insists upon these, the particular claims, is neither desirous nor willing to assume an attitade unkind or unconcilia- tory towards Great Britain. If, on her part, there are claims, either of a commercial character or of boundary or of commercial or judictal regulation, which Her Majesty’s government esteem important to bring under examination at the present time the United States would in such _ case be not unwilling te take them into con- sideration in connection with the clanse which are now presented on their part, and with a view to remove at one time and by one comprehensive settlement all existing causes of misunderstanding. Mr. Seward proceeded to recommend, in support of claims, the use of the same Fonerat argu- ments (incinding pre-eminently the alleged effect of the reeognition - of Southern __belligerency and the general injur to the national commerce of the United States) which had been previously so often employed by Mr. Adams, He added:—“The claims upon which we insist are of lal amount. They affect the interests of many usand citizens of the United States in various parts of the republic. The justice of the claims is sus- tained dy the universal sentiment of the people of the United States.” The claims specified in_the enclosure to this despatch (which Is headed “Summary of Claims of Citizens of the United States | against Great Britain) ,” relates exclusively to losses sustained by the owners and tasurers of divers ships and cargoes captured by the Alabama, the etinge oe: the Florida and the Georgia, respect- ; ively. ‘This wages having been communicated by Mr. Adams to Lord Stanley, His Lordship, through Sir P. | Bruce (Lord Stanley ¢o Sir F. Bruce, November 30, | 1866), called attention to what he supposed to be an accidental error of Mr. Seward, in mentioning the Sumter, which did not proceed from a British port, but was an American vessel, and gommenced her career | by escaping from the Mossissippl. Then, after dealmg with Mr. Sewaras general arguments, and declining to abandon the ground taken by former governments so far as to admit the lisbtiltyof this country for the claims then and now put forward, he expressed his sense of the inconveniences which arose from the exist- ence of unsettled claims of this character between two Powers and friendly govern- ments, and his willingness to adopt the. rinciple of arbitration, previded that a itting arbitrator could be found, and that an ment could be come to as to the te bitration should apply. He ol arbitration the question of the recognition o' Confederate Stat erent, saying the act Someiniee very remotely on the question is one as to which every held to be the sole judge of its duty.” In another despatch to Sir F, Brace of the same date he st “| have confined myself exclusively to the co! eration of THE AMERICAN CLAIMS PUT FORWARD IN MR. ARD’S DESPATCH to Mr. Adams of the 27th August, and arising out of the depredations committed on American commerce by certain cruisers of the Confederate States, but independently of these claims soo gh ngs Moats ht Her Majesty's government know, be other 3 on the part of American citizens events of the late ciyi war, while there certainly are very numerous British claims arising out of those events which it is very desirable shonid be inquired into and adjusted between the two coun- tries, The government of the United States have brought before that of Her Majesty one clans of CLAIMS OF A PECULIAR CHARACTER, | put forward by American citizens. in regard to | which you are authorized by my other despatch of | this date to make a proposal to’ Mr. Seward, but Her Majesty's government have no corresponding class of claims to urge upon the attention of the American government.” And he presently after- wards speaks of fhe special American claims “to “| which my other despatch alludes,” an expression which is adopted and repeated by Mr. Seward in his reply to Str F. Bruce, 12th January, 1867. A PRACTICAL CONCLUSION, Ina further despatch to Mr. Adama, “12th Janu- ary, 1867,"’ Mr. Seward justifies and reaffirms the sentence in his letter of the 27th of August in | which the Sumter was mentioned as substantially correct, on the und that that vessel had been admitted into the British ports Trinidad and ima inating in the Gibralta, and “allowed to sold” in the latter port “to British buyers for the | account and benefit of the insurgents, and | afterwards received under the British flag at Liver- pool”? His practical conctusion is that the United | States think it not only easier but more desirable | that Great Britain shonid acknowledge and satisfy. | the claims for indemnity which we have submitted than it would be to find an equal and wise arbi- trator who would consent to adjudicate them. If, however, Her Majesty's govern- ment, for reasons satisfactory to them, should refer the remedy of arbitration the | United States would not object. The United States | in that cage would expect to refer the whole con- troversy justas it is found in the correspondence whichtias taken place between the two govern- | ments, with such further evidence and arguments | as either patty may desire, without imposing re- | strictions, conditions or limitations upon the um- | pire, and without waiving any _ principle lor ‘argument on either side. They = can- not consent to walve apy question ! upon the consideration that it involves A point of national honor, and on the other hand | they will not require that any question of national | pride or honor shall be expressly ruled and deter-. | Inined as such.” To this Lord ley, 9th March, 1867, to Sir F. Bruce, replied:—“To such an exten- sive and unlimited reference Her Majesty’s govern- ment cannot consent, for this reason (amon; others), that It would adinit, and, indeed, compe! the submission to the arbiter of the very question ) wae have already sald they cannot agree to subinit, | THE REAL MATTER AT JESUR BETWEEN THE TWO GOV- | ERNMENTA, when kept apart from collateral considerations, is whether, in the matters connected with the vessels out of whose depredations the claims of American cltizeps have arisen, the course pursued by the | British government and by those who acted under | | its authority Was such as would tnyojve a fioral | responsibility on the part of the Britta govern- ment to make good, ejther \n whole or in part, the losses of American citizens, This is a plain and sim- ple pele ah ery, kh ry considered by ah arbiter, 801 jit wider Issues. and Li ql thout raising other is question Her Ma- lesty's government are fully prepare - ration, and the further prov so the ir enh geeks he British view p Paget taal r Enravorabie to e ¢. of the several clat Of the United States shall be referred to a weet commission, with @ view to the settlement of the suns to be paid on them.” His Lordship then re- Lgl that, deeming tt important that the adjudic jon of this question should not icave- oth questions of claims in which thetr respective gut. jects or ‘citizens may be interested to be matter of further-pablic disagreement between the two a anig ng Her Majesty’s government think it neeessary, in the event of an understanding being come to between the two governments as to the manner in which the special American | | claims which have formed the subject of | the correspondence of which his present despatch Was the sequel shoull be it with, that | wader a convention to be separately and sim- ultancously concladed, the general claims of the sublects and citiZone Of the two countries, arising | wit | Lord Stanley himself had spoken of the settlement | Seward out of the events of the late war, should be sub- mitted to a mixed commission, &c. concladed, is the peapame which Her ernment desire to sul United States and limited reference to arbitration in regard to the so-called Alabama claims, and ad judication by means of @ mixed commission of general clat THE ‘SO-CALLED ALABAMA OLAIMS.’? The first occasion on which these words, “the so-called Alabama claims,” occurred ip the course of the whole correspondence was shortly before the date of this letter, in a letter from Mr, Seward to Sir F. Broce, 12th of January, 1867, he ars of Lord Stanley’s previous despatch of the 30th November, 1866, as setting forth the views of Her Majesty’s government of the so¢alied Alabama ‘claims, presented in my despatch to Mr, Adams, and 4s concluding with « aks gene of the some modification, Majesty's pov- In regard to those claims of the Alabama and other ¢laims by means of the proposal which he had authorized Sir F. Bruce to make, in anoteto Sir P, Bruce dated the 24th of January, 1867. The same phrase, “Alabama claims,” reference to the same proposed settlement, in articles which previously appeared in some of the Seward. On the 2d of May, 1867, municated to Lord Stanley the substance of Mr. erly expressed as to. THE BEST WAY OF DEALING WITH THESE CLAIMS. The; et peculiar limitation o| Alabama claims sucn as Her MN caty ; ’s goverment suggest. ‘They cannot give any pre! of arbitrament su; tes ra that all neutral claims which arosé @uring the civil Re between citizens and subjects of countrieé, ouglit to be amicably atid speedily ad- same forms, and on principles common to all. WHAT WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE CLAIMS. language of this communication led Lord Sta to think that his proposal might, been understood as applying arising out of the to the exclusion of rhaps, have ing the f ‘aims the Al Procccings of the Florida, a aud Yeorgia, He, therefore, wrote to Sir F, Bruce on 24th of May, 1867, saying, “It is important to clear up this point, and you will, therefore, state to Mr. Seward that the offer to go to arbitration wes not restricted to the claims arising out of the like proceeding of the other. vessels that I have named.” Referring again to the terms of his despatch of the oth of March, he then directs Sir F. Bruce to inform Mr, Seward that ‘there was no intention on the part of Her Majesty's govermnsns to give any preference in regard to the form of arbitrament to the Alabama ch that there must have been some misapprehen- sion on this point, because the question of disposing of genera] claims in contradistinc- tion to the specific claims arising out of the proceedings of the Alabama and veseels of that class, had not hitherto been a matter of con- troversy between the two governments. Shortly afterward, having spoken of the first or Alabama Class of claims, he says:—“The one class, or the specific claims, stich as those arising out of the proceedings of the Alabama and such vessels, de- pend for their settlement on the solutien of what may be called an abstract question— namely, whether in the matters —con- necte with the vessels out of whose depredations the claims of Amertcan citizens have arisen the course pursued by the British ernment ard those who acted under {ts author- ty was such as would involve a meral responsi- bility 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 separate modes of arbitration as to the two “classes of claims, viz. :—Those of the Alabama class, or the Alabama and such like claims, and the gen- eral claims of the citizens of both countries. ANOTHER TIOKLISH POINT. Farther tiscussion.ensued, Mr. Seward, on the 12th of August, 1867, In a despatch communicated by Mr. Adams, said that he understood the British offer to be at once comprehensive and suf- ficiently precise to include all the claims of Amer- jean citizens for depredations on their commerce during the late rebellion which had been the sub- ject of complaint on the part of the gov- ernment of the United States; but that the government of the United States would deem itself at liberty to insist before the arbitrator that the actual proceedings and relations of the British gov- ernment, its oficers, agents and subjects toward the United States, in regard to the rebellion and the rebels as they occurred, during that re- bellion, avere among the matters which were connected with the vessels whose depredations were comp! lained of. He then objected to the con- stitution of two different tribunals, one an arbiter to determine the question of the moral responst- bility of the British government in regard the vessels of the Alabama class, and the other a mixed commission to adjudicate the so-called general claims on VoL sides, und gald that In every case bis A gaa agreed only to unrestricted arbitra- jon. THE ENUMERATED DIFFERENCES. Lord Stanley to Sir F. Bruce, 10th September, 1867: —Lord Stanley, in his id of the 16th Novem- ber, through Mr. Ford, 16th November, 1867, used further argument in support of the British proposal, as the so-cylled Alabama claims, After some inter- mission the correspondence was resumed by a despatch of Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams, expressin; his wish that some means oe fe be fonnd of arrang- ing the: ice now existing between England ond the Staics, which was communicated to Lord Stanley on the 16th of February, 1868. ‘The questions causing these differences were thus enumerated by Mr. Seward :— Pai ‘The Alabama claims Second—The San Juan question. Third—The question of naturalized citizens, their rights and pala Fourth—The fishery question. And he suggested that the trne method of deal- pa with all these matters was by treating them jointly, and endeavoring by means of a conference to settle them all. LORD STANLEY'S ANSWER. vin STANLEY TO MR. THORNTON 15th February, Negotiations followed in the first instance di- wed to the third and second of these four ques- jons. REVERDY JOHNSON APPEARS. On the 20th of October Mr. Reverdy Johnson, who. had now sneceeded Mr. Adams, called on Lord Stanley “to discuss with me,” says Lord Stanley in &@ despatch of 2ist October, 1968, to Mr. ‘Thornton, “the question of the Alabama claims, Mixed Commiseion to whom all the c! sides should be referred.” out the inapplicability of this method of proceeding a8 applied to the Alabama claims and others of the same class, and suggested as arbitrator the head of a friendly State. AS to the recognition of beliigerency, he sald that Her Majesty's vernment conid not depart from. the position which they had taken up, but that he saw no impossibility in so framing the reference as that by mutual consent, either tacit or express, the diMeulty might be avoided. On the 19th of Novem- ber, 1868, a convention was accordingly signed, sub- ject to ratification, between Lord Stanley on the part of Her Majesty, and Mr. Johnson on the part of the United State THE STANLEY.JOHNSON CONVENTION. By article, of this C8nvention it was agreed that all claims of subjects of Her Britannic Majesty on the government of the United States and all claims on the part of citizens of the United States, upon the government of Her Britannic Majesty, which might have been presented to either government for its interposition, with the others, since the 26th of July, 1853, and which yet remain unsettled, as well as any others, such claims which might be ms on both Lord Stanley pointed presented within the time spectfled in article 3, viz, :—within six months from the day of the first meeting of the commissioners, unless they, or the arbitrators, or umpire, should allow a further time, should be referred to four commissioners, with provision for an arbi- tration or umpirage, in case of their being unable to come to a decision on any claim, Article 4 was in these terma:—The commissioners shall have power to adjudicate upon the class of claims referred to in the official correspondence between the two governments as the Alabama claims, but vefore any of such claims is taken into considera- tion by them the two high Cintipl eg 4 arties shall fix upon gome sovereign, or head of a friendly State, ac a arbitrator, in respect of such claims to whom such class of claims shall be referred in case the commissioners shall be unable to come to an unani- mous decision upon the same. Article six provides that “with aa to the before-mentioned Ala- bama class of claims neither government shall make out a case in support of its position, nor shall any person be heard for or against any such claim.” The oficial correspondence which has already taken place between the two vernments respecting the questions at issue shall alone be Jaid before the commissioners, and the event of their not coming to an unanimous decision, as provided in article 4, then before the arbitrator, shall, how- ever, beat liberty to call for argument or further evidence if they or he shall deem it necessary. Down é this La it i bth an in ; pa cations between the two Soontrlg * vata sere a, Bat to os the ny jalmn: r for direct taunt funtred by wer can citizens through the acts of the Alabama and similar ves- sels, and such claims only. When the terms of et) convention Became Kuown ig America the govern: ent of the United States desired certain altera- ions to be made i i pepe of which had any, en- dency either to énlargé the category of the tlalms 4N question or to change the sense or application of the phrase “the Alabama claims.”’ The correspond. | ence as to the modifications desired continued until January, 1869, when Her Majesty's government, having agreed to the alverations then proposed b, Mr. Seward, a a“ THE AMENDED CONVENTION of the 14th of January, 1869, was signed by Lord Clarendon and Mr. Reverdy Johnson. ‘The hate 9 spondence of this period throughout maintains an condrme the senae which the words of the “Ala- had” wow acquitted, "en acquired, in r " spatch of December 8, iene wo tate Thorne fase Memoranda of several — consultations and conferences with Mr, Reverdy Johnson, prior to the Fignature of the Convention of the 10th of November, were enclosed. “the Alabame 8 over claims in the like category, thinking | ' claims,” the Alabama an Such, then. he | -] mit to the government of the | cluded under the same hi | the su! in which | rinciple of arbitration, attended | Mr, Thornton stated the objections then urged by English newspapers dnring the antumn of 1866. | He says:—‘The United States are obli Lord Stanley’s letter of the 9th of March, 1867, was, | + by his direction, read to and a ag (4 left with Mr. | ir. Adams com- | declares that, the commissioners Seward’s reply, saying that “the government of the | United States adhere to the view which they form- | retain this clause because of its explicitness They did not, in | ference to the | Alabama claims over others in regard to the form { while they agree | bama claims were plain! ic two | comprehgpsly § Justed, they must insist that they be a ted by | one and the same form of tribunal, with like and the | Alabama class of claims constitute the largest and 1 | onl recede ot ama, | trialand decision, hose ng, out of Ehe like | explicitly stated that henando: i} designating throughout the special class of claims | roposing % | Lord Clarendon dated 25th | | pits be incinded other similar claim: “the so-called Alabama and other similar claims, and the so-called Alabama claims and others |, and the several varie- hrase used in these memoranda to describe Bject ultimately defined in the fourth article of that Convention as the class of claims referred to in the oficial correspondence between the two gov- ernments as the Alabama. In a letter of the 12th of November, 1868, Mr. Reverdy Johnson, while com- municating a telegraphic despatch from Mr. Seward, in which a general approval of the terms of the Convention afterwards, modified in various im- portant points, was accompanied by a stipulation that Washington and not London should be the place of necting of the commissioners, Her Majesty's government assented,” said, the change will be disadvantageous to the Alabama claimants.” In adespatch of 30th November, 1868, ties of Mr. Seward to the Convention, in which Mr. also spoke of the claims men- tioned in article 4 «a8 the Alabama and war claims, and the Alabama claims and of the persons interested in those claims as “the Alabama claimants,” Mr, Seward’s despateh | had also been used on one or two occasions, with | of the z7th of November to Mr. Reverdy Johuson, communicated to Lord Clarendon on.the 22d of December, repeatedly employs the same ‘er low this article 4. The United States have no ob- jection to the first clause of the article, which shall have power to adjudicate upon the so-called Alabama claims, Indeed, the United States would yalitoan w regard to the Alabama claims. their instructions to you, {Asist upon such a special uently consent toa special and | direction in regard to the Alabama claims, but only arbitrament in regard to the | because Shey ims thought that special mention of these cla might be deemed inconvenient on the part of Her Majesty’s government, while it could not admit of doubt that these so-called Ala- b included, as well as all other claims of citizens of the United States in the description of claims contained in econdly, it 48 con- article ei iy’8 government that th sidered by Her Majes most material of the entire mass of claims of citi- zens of the United States against Great Jritain, Lord Stanley to Sir F. Bruce, May 2, 1867.—The | which it is the object of the Convention to adjust. ey | Upon the Alabama, as well as all others, the govern- ment is content to obtain, and most earnestly de- sires, a perfectly Lea and impartial judicial is ovrrenene has always tb ASKS 8G ay NO DISCRIMINATION JN PAYOR OF THE Mapawa eet ‘CLAIMA, and can admit of no material discrimination against them in the forms of trialand judgment, but musi on the contrary, have them placed on the sam basis as all other claims, It probably will conduce to no good: end to set forth on this occasion the reasons yy the Alabama more than an: other el of international dificul- ties existing between the countries two are the very claims against which the United States cannot agree to or admit of any prejudicial discrim- ination. To present the reasons now would be simply to relate arguments which have been con- tinuaily presented by the department in all the former stages of this controversy, while it is fair to admit that these reasons have been controverted with equal perseverance by Her Majesty’s Department for Foreign Affairs. ‘The general result of this correspondence was that, in the convention of the 14th of January, 1869, other provisions were substituted for those of the fourth and sixth articles of the convention of the 10th of November, 1868, to which the United States govern- ment had objected, and the spect tion of the Alabama was transferred from those articles to article 1, which provided “that all claims on the part of subjects of Her Britannic Majesty upon the government of the United States and all claims on the part of citizens for the United States upon the government of Her Britannic Majesty, including the so-called Atabama claims, which may have been presented to either government for its interposition with the other since the 26th of July, 1853, and which yet remain unsettled, as well as any other such claims which may be presented within the time specified in article 30 of this convention, whether or not arising out of the late civil war in the United States, shall be referred,” &c. On the 22d of July, 1889, Mr, Thornton reported to Lord Clarendon the resolution of @ majority of the Committee on For- eign Relations of the Senate of the United States recommending the Senate not to ratify the convention, Mr. Sumner, who moved the resolution, having said, “that it covered for whiche the United States none of the principles always contended.” He also enclosed a resolution of the Legislature of Massachuse! Pa eaay against the ratification of any convenlion which di not admit the liability of England for the acts of the Alabama and her consorts. REVERDY JOHNSON’S NEW PROPOSALS. On the 22d of March, 1869, Mr. Reverdy Johnson, without special instructions, ‘called upon Lord Clarendon and proposed a further change in the first article of the convention which he&thought tained by the Senate to the convention, and wo secure its ratification by that body. This new change consisted in the introduction of allclaims on the part of Her Britannic Majesty's government upon the government of the United Stat and all claims on the part of the government the United States upon the Roverument of Her Britannic Majesty, as well as and citizens as to which the language of the con- despatch to inarked to Mr. Johnson that his which was for the settlement of claims between the Subjects and citizens of Great Britain and the United States; but that the two governments not having put forward any claims on each other, I could only suppose that his object was to favor the introduction of some claim by the government of the United States for injury sustained on account of the ey, pursued by Her Majesty's govern- ment. Mr, pT Peep did not ‘object to the interpretation of amendment, but said that if claims to compensation on account of the recognition by the British government of the bel- ligerent rights of the Confederates were brought forward by the government of the United States, the British eorera aaa might, on its part, bri forward claims to compensation for damages done to British subjects by American blockades, which, if the Confederates were not belligerents, were ille- gally enforced. against them. Lord Clarendon then, after referring to the proofs which Her Majesty's government had given of their willingness to make any reasonable amendments to mevt the wishes of the United States, and to the difference in the course of ts adopted in America, said, “That it did not seem proper for Her Majesty's government to take any further ste) in the matter, or to adopt any endment to the convention even if it had n free from objection. Mr. Reverdy Johnson, still without authority, renewed his proposition in @ letter to rch, 1$60, ta which he stated that he had reason to believe that the objoc- tion of the Senate of the United States to the con- vention consisted in the fact that the convention provided ow for the settlement by arbitration of the indiviaual claims of Britlsh subjects and American citizens upon tho respective governments, and not for any claims which either fovernment as such might have upon the other, 4 y eovernnis ty, he added, believe, asI 8m now, advised, that it has a claim of its own upon Her Majesty’s fovernment because of the conse- quences resulting from a premature recognition of the Confederates during our late war, and from the fitting out of the Alabama and other similar vessels in Her Majesty's ports, and from their permitted entrance into other ports to be refitted and provisioned during their periodical cruise. ‘The existence of such a claim makes it as neces- sary that its ascertainment and ser earlg shall be provided for as the individual claims (pers out of the same circumstances, The United States ae down to this time, had insisted that the new convention ought strict! to follow the precedent or the Convention of 18: which contained no provision for any epecies of public claims, Lord Clarendon, therefore, on April 8, 1869, thus ANSWERED MR. REVERDY JOUNSON :— Her aah government could not fail to ob- serve that this proposal involved a wide departure from the tenor and terms of the Convention of 1853, to which, in compliance with your instructions, you have constantly pressed Her Majesty's govern- ment to adhere, as necessary to insure the ratifi- cation of a new convention by the Senate of the United States, No undue importance is attached to this deviation, but I beg leave to inform you that in the opinion of Her Majesty's government it would serve no useful pu now to consider any amendment to a convention which gave fulleffect to the wishes of the United States government and was Uy ide! by the late President and Secretary of State, who referred it for ratification to the Senate, where it appears to have encountered objections, the nature of which has not been officially made known to Her Majesty's government, REVERDY JOHNSON RETORTS, 3 Mr. Revevdy Jolnson on the sth oF Ape replied that ‘the design of the Convention of 1863 was to settle all claims which either government in behalf of its own citizens or subjecta might have upon the other. At that time neither government as such made a demand upon the other,/but that, as my proposition agsumes, is not the case now. me overnment of the nuked riptee believes that it has, in its own right, a clalmi upon the gov- ernment of Her Majesty. In order, therefore, to a full settlement of all existing claims, it is neces- sary that the one Wi c; my ove ec (makes, and al ren] ie oh Her jh governiabat mi y 9 Unites tate b thé convention of the January, 1969, instructions, to which Your ip Téiei's, were rovide for the settlement of the claims mentioned in such instructions by a convention upon the model of the one of February, 1853, That I did not suggegt in the negotiations which led to the Convention of Januiry. The in- cluding within it any governmental claims was be- cause my instructions only referred to the indi- vidual claims of cleizens and subjects. I forbear to een res ag to the grounds upon which my inatruc- tlons were so limited.” MR. JOHNSON’S SUGGESTIONS NOT ENTERTAINED, Her Majesty's government adhered to their deci- sion not to entertain at all the thus made by Mr. Reverdy Johnson, and they mtimated, in correction of an crroncous inference drawn by him jrom the concluding sentence of Lord Claren- don’s letter of the 8th ril, that it was not to be pepeged that this proposal would be acceptable to Her Majesty's government, even if it were made or have repealed under positive instructions from the United States government, and with the prospect would satisfactorily meet tlie objections pa ; i claims of subjects vention would have remained unaltered. Lord | Clarendon aoe what then took ploce, in his r. Thornton, March 20, 1809:—“I_ re- proposal would in- troduce an entirely new feature into the convention, of terminating the entire controversy, Lord Clai endon to Mre Johnson, 16th April, 1960, and Mr. Johnson's reply, 16th April, 1869. — CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT. ae ie inesaans in se Bator of om zeseter ¢ following conclusions 0! resalt:— First—That Mr Reverdy Johnson's instructions from his government never extended to the asser- tion or settlement of any other claims than those of individual citizens of the United States against s in sting, for the first time, the possible extents i¢ claims on | his government he acted without authority. ird—That no such public claims as those of beset aE ip br) Suggested by him-had ever or notified, Ven vutanner dened Mor were even then in ur at the public | possible existence Fas sos pan ren bo claims “growing or arising sump out of the acts of | the Alabama” or any other vessels, but claims “be- | cause of the consequences resul | mature recognition of the Confederat | war, and from the fitting out of the | Sey SoS ae us in Her ‘8 ports and from their ted entrance into , ‘That the words Alabaima claltie ea FiUth—-' Rattan form of expression, mae oe 4 use of, nor was their use ever eoppned to be varied or extended s0 asto comprehen ‘this new class of suggested puiblic claims, Stcth—That the idea of a one-sided reference of stich supposed public claims of the government of the United States only was never for a moment ad- vanced or entertained; on the contrary, the easen- tial condition of Mr. Johnson's proposal was that it should also be open to Her Majesty to advance an; public claims whatever whic! the: might conceive themselves to have against vernment of the United States, a claim for injury to British interests by the assertion and exercise of belligerent rights sqrinss British commerce being expressly anticipated asa probable or ible set off to any claim on the part of the United States, founded upon the denial of a belligerent status at apy given period to the Con- federates. Seventh—That, although offered under these con- ditions, the an rpo iy stg Matyas ly and without a dis- cussion declined by Her Majesi yh gevernmnen'. Tt was in Mr. Se er’s speech, at the meetin; the United States Senate which refused to ral the convention of January 14, 1860, that the firs! conception of palit claims of the nature and nae nitude of those now advanced in the *‘case”’ of the United States was made known the world. His argument on this head was thus summed up by Mr. ‘Thornton April 19, 1869, to Lord Clarendon :— from a pre- during the Alabama and Your Lordship will percetve that the sum of Mr, Sam- 5 ona i, that England insulted the United sta ature, untrient and unneces: een, enjoining. neutrality. on Hee ‘Miaeniy at she owes them an apol for Os that she is responsible for the property destroyed by the other Confederate cruisers, © and reste, inell the gerease iy inte nels e crease The fate of insurance ; that the Confederates were so much assisted by belng able to get arms and ammunition from England, and so much encouraged by the Queen's pro- claimation, the war lasted much longer than it it otherwise would have done, and that we ought, therefore, to pay IMAGINARY ADDITIONAL EXPENSES imposed upon the United States by the prolongation of the war. Mr. Sumner himself did not affeet to represent the latter portion, at all events, of his suggested demand as “growing out of the acts of the Ala- bama” or of any other particniar vessel, and Mr. Thornton's comment upon the whole of it shows very clearly the impossibility of ascribing to the acts of any particular vessels alleged to have been fitted out from British ports; either the whole or any ascertainable part; of the gen- eral losses sustained by American commerce durin; the war, or even di{stinguishing between snc! losses of that kind as were real and those which were apparens only. So far no stop was taken by the United States government to adopt Mr. Sum- ner’s views or to advance olaims corresponding to them. On the 10th June, 1869, Mr. Motley renewed to Lord Clarendon the declaration of the wish of his government that existing differences between the two countries should be honorably settled, and that the international relations should placed on a firm and satisfactory basis, which LORD CLARENDON, OF COURSE, RECIPROCATED. Then, after adverting to other subjects, he said that ‘the Claims Convention had been published prematurely, owing to some accident which he could not explain, and that consequently long be- fore it came under the notice of the Senate it had been unfavorably received by all classes and parties in the United States. e time at which it was signed was thonght most inopportune, as the late President and his government were out of office, an’ thelr successors could not be committed on this grave question. The convention was further objected to because it embraced only the claims of individuals, and had no reference to those of the two govern- ments on each other, and, lastly, that it BETTLED NO QUESTION AND LAID DOWN NO PRIN- CIPLE. These were the chief reasons which had led to its rejection by. the Senate, and Mr. Motley added, # although they had not been = at once and explicitly stated, no discourtesy to Her Majesty's government was - thereb) intended.” On.the 25th of Lo gfe mages 1869, Mr. Fis! revived the whole subject of the controversies be- tween the two governments within its widest Tange, in a long and elaborate despatch to Mr. Mot- , in whict he referred, among other things, “to the responsibility of the British government for at least all the depredations committed by he Jabama” as indisputable. He stated, owards the end, the President's concurrence with the Senate in disapproving the convention of the 14th of January, 1869, thinking, in addition to general reasons left to be inferred from the general arguments of the despatch, that ‘the provisions of the convention were te to provide repara- tion for the United States in the manner and to the wrt, to which he consic the United States en- titled to redress.” :He led, “The President is not yet prepared to on the westion of the ind which he thinks dne by Great. individual citizens of the'United States for truction of their property by rebel cruisers fitted out in the ports of Great Britain; nor is he now prepared to aes of the reparation which he thinks ane ‘by the ritish government for the larger eccount of THE VAST NATIONAL INJURIES it has infiicted on the United States; nor does he attempt now to measure’ the relative effect’ of the various causes of injury, as whether by uni recognition of belligerency, by suffering the ‘ing out of rebel cruisers or by the Supply of arme and muni- tions of war to the Confederates, or otherwise, in whatgoever manner. All these are subjects of future consideration, which, when the ie for action shall come, the President will consider, with sincere and earnest desire that all differences be- tween the two nations may be adjusted amicably and compatibly. with the honor of each other and to the future. promotion _ of. concord between them, to which end he will spare no ef- forts within the range of his supreme duty to the rights and interests of the United States. At the resent stage of the controversy the sole object of resident is to state the position and maintain the ae ain Oy Apel States in the various relations aspects of grave controversy with Great .. It is the object of this paper, which you are at liberty to show or read to Lord Tiatendon, “to state calmly. and Speen ey with @ more unmeasured freedom than ht be used in one ee ees band mA eon ks government what iS government seriously considers the injuries it has suffered. It is is NOT WRITTEN IN THE NATURE OF A CLAIM; for the United States now make no demand ay Her Majesty's government on account of the in- juries they feel they have sustained. Lord Claren- don, understanding this despatch as intended to revive and to prepare the way for a new settlement of the claims previously advanced, spoke of it in his answering despatch to Mr. Thornton, November 6, 1869, as “a despatch from Mr. Fish on the Alabama claims.’ That it was not intended to extend, and | that It had not the etfect of extending the significa- tion of that term, as used in the previous corre- spondence, is plain, First—Vrom the fact that Mr. Fish expressly dis- claimed for his despatch the office or effect of mak- ing any new claim or demand, Second—That it reserved for future consideration the question of reparation: for the supposed “national injuries” inflicted by the British govern- ment on the United States, an Third—That it “dectined to measure the relative effect of the various ‘alleged’ causes of injury,” the “suffering the fitting out of rebel cruisers” being onty one of three causes enumerated. Lord Clarendon simply contented himeeif ‘with replying that Her Majesty's government could not make any new propositions or run the = RISK OF ANOTHER UNSUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATION until they had information more clear than that which was contatned in Mr. Fish’s despatch re- specting the basis upon which the government of the United States would be disposed to negotiate; busin & paper of observations upon the arguments in this despatch, which he, at the same time (6th 1869), transmitted to Mr. ton, to be communicated to Mr, he remarked, under the head of ‘In- direct Injw to American Commerce,” this allegation of national, indirect or constructive claims was first brought forward officially by Mr. Reverdy Johnson. In his attempt to renew nego- tiations on the claims in March last Mr, Thornton has shown the DIFFICULTY THERB WOULD BE IN COMPUTING the amfoynt of the claim, even if it were ac Howledary i? & despatch in which he mentions the continti lecre of American tonnage, This is partly, no doubt, to be ascribed isturbance of commercial relations lent on Jol war, inst November, Thorn- Fish, he a the fact ate nomin: isferred to i lowever, & aod deal” of ie 4e be ateriouved is not, howe’ a le hy 3 which makes the con- struction of vessels in American ports more expen- sive than shipbuilding ia Engin and hag thereby ol i ehapen veasels We! British ing the war to escape jt to the high American thrown 0 lai tra into Engiish ‘hands, tet ht ctor Wat ssor Wolsey, jurist, had repugiated ¢! as uni &c. : This cloves arrative of the communications ta anterior to those which had for their result the negotia- tion a the Treaty of Washington. They show con- own 20th of January, 1671 My "< ernment trough ur e posed to Mr. Fish the appoifatment o a ieiut High Commission to settle the dshery gues- behalf of | Son, and ail other pestions affecting: “the reln- ol iter tates toward Her Le mg ‘8 ofthe 8 in North America,” no actual or notified on the part United States against Her Majesty’s government, except for the capture or destruction 0 fap a of individual citizens of the United States by t bama and other similar vessels, ‘Second—That the government of States had, in Mr, ’s despatch of the 25th September, 1869, for the first time intimated to the government of this country that they considered here might i) E nade toe Come claims of a oo abstained at that time from making them) PY Third—That the grounds tndicated, as those on which any such larger and more public claims ht be Bao, wee: a rec to the acts of the ama and other sim! ‘Vessels, or consequence of those acts; an Pap ne mare MORE TRADE MARK INFRINGEMENTS, Messrs. Duncan & Sons, of Broadway and Four- teenth street, yesterday obtained @ warrant for the arrest of Messrs. Edward Cole & James Stephens, of 600 Washington street, on a charge of mfringement, on Lea & Perrin’s Worcestershire sauce trade mark. ‘The gentlemen were arrested and in the afternoon taken before Judge Dewi, at the Tombs Police Court, where they were each held to bail in the sum of $1,000, All the sauce and trade mark labels in the store were seized at tho time of the arrest. Mr. William F. Howe, who has been retained for the de- fence, says he proposes making a test case of this, “AUIOGHTHER THz CHEaPpar PLAGE FOR GOOD AM Gas Fixtures, Chandelicae Brice bo. GH Speed, Hittin Cone fa Rendauarters, schout intervention of gas portation, MeLEWEE a PUTNAM AO) arcadia BSOLUTE DIVOROES LEGALLY OBTAINED FROM Advice A the courts of different States. No publicity, free. Not Ne and Comrmnisstoncr: , FRING Soansehe Dery every, Stas, BSOLUTE DIVORCES LEGALLY OB D FROM A Courts of ditierent Btatess legal company, Beet tion, ubticti oquired: no , &c., sufficient canse; to charge Tint divorce, Ouse poms Haire Fee snap T A GREAT. REDUCTION IN PRICES—CHINA,: JA, Glagh lieflgeratora, Cutlery and every deseriptod EDWARD D. BASSFORD, Cooper Institute Building. A HERALD BRANGH OFFICE, BROOKLYN, f Pulton avenue and Bocrum street, eae “Open from 8 A. M. to 8 eM ARGAINS IN TEAS, COFFEES, GROCERIES AND . lit the palate the pock- Besancon i ag 260 Greenwich street, NEENNESS AND OPIUM HABIT OURED—B¥, DONE DIARS MD. 107 Fourth avenue ; 10,000 saved. Call or send stamp for evidence. LEETWOOD PARK—UNDER {HE FOLLOWING decision of the Court of Appeals of the Nat AB sociation willbe trotted, May 16 at3 P. ho undiniaied race of september 1! . purke No. 4 : for horses that have never trotted better than 228; $1,800 to fi Shi) to 'secenay $00 to third;, for which the follow oT Garpenter, sm, Suse. a ir, a Do yr. m. Lady Augusta. sel Nebaughiin ary, uel Me Lau; . 4 John Lovett | ie «. Young Bruro. ames Ral | Decsden. John Murphy, b. #. Charlle Green. Gorge P. Carpenter, b. m. Lady Hoss J.J. Bowen, gr. m. Sea Foam. ¥. g. Ben Starr. fedoc. James H. Coleman. A. Patt m, ch. g. Dreadnaught. Tie Yollowing 1a the decision of the Court of Appeaiss— “We hoid, therefore, that the original race has not been Feat ae a ee om tis frst good tay o'cloc! . M., of sree areer the loth day of Mag aiextensoing, and that d nm horses which were Il be present to start again; and when. st acapanar webo ee araee aa and aj 4 avendy " trotted, and Phat the other heats oond befexciaded 1 races and that said record be corrected by putting said fourth heat and counting the same as a heat won by James H. Coleman, with Oharlle Green second therein, and by placing the other horses therein in such subordi- MMi baets chat hit rt al Ge aebate edby the Fleetwood “AsJockailon to preside over the con- race. ‘We further hold :—That, for the determination of pools and bets which may be pending, said original race stands on the footing of a “race ostpaned,” which is for in betting rule No.2. And ifany of the original race have received any part of purse, Kec etes restore the same at once ‘Association.’ — WM. H. VAN COTT, Superintendent. ‘0 MORE MEDICIN®.—70,00) CURES OF DYSPEP None Phthisis, Constiptalon Diarrhae, Liver and Nervous Disorders by DU BARRY’S delicious REVALENTA ARABICA FOO! Which saves fifty times ita cost in medicines. Ting, | 1d. $1.2 21d, $18 JOHN F. HENKY, agent, 8 College New Yor M. Roden, br. J. MOSES’ ELECTRO.GALVANIO PATENTED JUNE 2, 1808. Contains in .sma)l rubber cases attachtd to the sides and invisible when worn two perfect Galvanic Batteries, sending a continuous stream of Electricity through the nerves of the head, beneficial in all cases of Neuralgia, giving to the overtaxed bi NERVE POWER and benefiting the alll UII ENTIRE SYSTEM if The Spectacles, tofitevery eight and with special glasses set in them that those not wanting glasses for reading can have the great benefit resulting from the use of the two galvanic batteries attached to the frame, ean be had of respectable jewellers and resident opticians and are each stamped J. MOBES' ELECTRO-GALVANIC, PATENTED JUNE 2, 1868, tH WHOLESALE DEPOT, 10 2 ORTLANDT BTREE, HUAI NEW YORK, ee ere QALE OF 200 PAINTINGS R BENE! AST AMON crest aren sitet ene a ate ane Ve 4 sanea’ae say that the nate it a ‘place at pupile ana ay even , Gate teary Pray Hall, commencing at gene . * ‘ jatrman < - Conimittee on French Paintin: WMI APPLETON, Chairman tee on Dusseldorf Paintings