The New York Herald Newspaper, May 15, 1872, Page 3

HE TREATY pondence on .the Consequential | Damages in Our “Case.” “The Prosident’s Special Mee- the Senate. errr ertioreenan Firm Attitude of Eng- land Throughout. She Denies That Indirect Claims Were Provided For. GRANVILLE’S FIRST LETTER OF ASSERTION Fish’s Reply Declaring the Treaty Covers All Claims. A British Mile-Long “Me- morandum.” What is Meant by the Alabama Claims Generically. PEDAGOGISM AND PROOF. America Beginning to ‘Weaken. The First Proposal for a Com- promise. A Flood of Submarine Di- plomacy. DRAFT OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL RULE, The Principle of Consequential Damages To Be Negotiated. Wasnineron, May 14, 1872, ‘The following is the correspondence in relation to the Alabama claims and the demand for indirect damages which passed between the State Depart- ment and the English Government. me President's Special Message to the ‘ fr A] ’ To rum Mpxare oF raz UNITED SraTes:— I transmit herewith the correspondence which has recently taken place respecting the differences of opinion which have arisen between this govern- ment and that of Great Britain with regard to the powers of the. Tribpnal of Arbitration created under the treaty signed at Washington May -8, 1871, I respectiully invite the attention of the Senate to the proposed article, submi| ernment with the s OBJBCT OF REMOVING THE DIFFERENCES which seem to threaten the prosccution of the ar- Hitration, and request an expression by the Senate of their disposition in regard to advising and con- senting to the formal adoption of an article such as is proposed by the British government. The Senate Is aware that the consultation with that body in advance of entering into agreements with foreign . Siateshas many preceaents, In the early days of the republic General Washington asked their ad- vice upon pending questions with such Powers, ‘The most important recent precedent is that of the Oregon Boundary Treaty, in 1946, ‘THE IMPORTANCE OF THE RESULTS hanging upon the present state of the treaty with ited by the British gov- obstacle should ition of the arbitration, ik and friendly toward the govern- to state at once their Un! ti ronments was the firm establish- emo two countries and the satisfaction with which the annou of the ‘ed by both natio: But there is another ited States attach the YR 0. Sanmnog, c., £0) 20, No, 0. GENRRAL SCHENCK TO LORD GRANVILLE. ‘This letter is a Bere formally showing that neral SeRenok had transmitt ite NEW YORK HERALD, WEDNESDAY, MAY r itted was his earnest hope that the delibera- {lous ef Py Commission would eee ance tne ty Meany ie frcotion time ‘SUM BE AGREED UPON AND PaID to me. United States as an emicable settlement of ] of every description, arising out of such dimerencen, fosteu of the controversy and litigation which he foresaw must attend any plan of arbitration. He was the more solicitous that such an amicable settlement, without the interven- tion of third parties, should be adopted because he feared that so thore and comprehensive a pre- sentation before the Tribunal of Arbitration of the matters of law and this country rest, as it would be his duty to cause to be made, might, for the moment, revive past ex- citements and arouse unnecessery apprehensions, if not imperil those ties of international kindness snag cul Ly so much desires to strengthen and mi per i The regret which he felt for the rejection by Her Majesty's Commissioners of the proposition tor aa amicable settlement is revived with great force by the nec rape this correspondence. The pout tion for a Joint High Commission, which was made by Her Majesty's government, would not have re- ceived the approbation of the President had he sumponed it Was not to comprehend a consideration ADJUSTMENT OF ALL THE DIFFERENCES rowing out of the acts of the cruisers; nor could ¢ have given his sanction to the treaty had it been sugested to him, or had he belleved that class of the claims which have been presented £3 this government were excluded by the terms of submis- sion from presentation on the part of this govern- ment to the Tribunal of Arbitration. It waa, in his Sppreciation, the chief merit of the mode of adjust- ment adopted by the Commission; that it was, on both sides, @ frank, full and UNRESERVED SURRENDER TO IMPARTIAL ARBITRA- MENT, under the rules therein of everything that had created auch ‘uterences, whatever degree of tance might here or there be attac! to any of these com) ite. The President desired and intended, us had the American Commissioners, that all, of every form and character, should be laid be- fore the tribunal for its final aud absolute disposi- tion, elther by recognition and settlement or by spectiog, iu order that in the future the harmony of personal and political intercourse between the two countries might never again be disturbed hy Pad possible phase of the controversy. In his opinion, since entry upon @ thorough trial of the iesues whioh divide the two governments could not be avoided, THE CLAIMS FOR NATIONAL OR INDIRECT LOSSES referred to in the note of Earl Granville, as they are put forward by this governmen inyoive ques- tions of public law which the int of both me ernments re be definitely sett The: it Ie with narianed surprise and sincere that the President has rece! conveyed in Earl Granville's note, that Her s government hold that it ie not within the tion to decide iis Lordship, however, does not assign C4 reason for the opinion that losses and injuries with respect to which there has been no concealment, which were presented to the Britis the discus: in the same manner as wey. are put forward in the case, not as claime for which a spocific demand was made, but as losses and injuries consequent spon the acts complained of, aud necessarily to be en into equitable con- sideration io a final settlemant of all ences be- tween the two countries, which remained unchal- leny wh the entire negotiations, and not relinquished in the treaty, but covered by one of its alternatives, are not wii the jurisdiction of the arbitrators. Unadvised as to the rei which has bronght Her jesty’s ernment to opin- fon stated by Lord Granville, the is un- able to adopt it; but, being convinced of the justice of his views that the treaty contemplated set- tlement of all the claims of the United States, is of ‘the opinion that HE COULD NOT ABANDON THEM EXCEPT AFTER A FAIR DECISION by an impartial arbitration. He seeks no meanifg in the treaty which is not Rote on its face. He advances no pretensions at eS pending the negotiatio! government knows not w meaning or the intent of the treat; the treaty itself. The declared 1p its preamble, was ‘to pi for an amicable settlement of all causes of difference between the two countries;” but the treaty is not of iteelf the settlement. It is an agreement between the governments ‘as to the mode of reach- ing a settlement, and its article 11 usages contracting parties to consider the result of the Ditration asa art perfect and final settlement of all the claims. Until that be reached no withholding an estimate of the indirect dent on the hope of an amicabie settlement can claimed a8 @ waiver or an article recites that differe! the two governments and “in order to remove and claims on the part of the claims growing out of acta gaid vessels, and aims,’ be be co at Washington. re the unless within of ¢ has, from the’ Of the acta which: weriee t0 the “Alabase came’? been that rament would the United States. Incidental or consequential often tioned as included in the accor sree ah In the progress of the acts which gave rise HIGH ‘WAS NOP WANTING to warn Her Majesty's 9 hem nel ne of Commons “they been inflictingan amount of on itry—the United States— greater than would be produced by many ordinary yates,” aa te, AB part of damage, the of purpose. the? treaty, tween the AN EXTRAVAGANT MEASURE OF D, ae finds expression in the excited language of the take of the statesmen of Great Britain. A mixed Commission is now in session in this city, under the treaty, to which are referred all claims 0} citizens or sudjects of either Power ‘other than Alabama claims,’ which arose out of acts comumit- ted Guring a specified period. In the correspon ence whi receded the nt for the meeting of the Tint Fign o as ne ted the ty, language was uy] to express the ca wh fentatives of the two wig no claim = for the q jerate debt, which is ‘be held in Great Britaim to the extent of millions. im- m on ite tation the United States re- m ted the British ment ' to inatruct agent to withdraw claim. - ‘THEIR REMONBFRANCE WAS UNBEBDED; their request not answered. If any instrac- of fact on which the claims of ved the intima- tors at the opcning of ‘which were not object of he treaty, as difference of opinion between the two governments | on any question connected with the treaty. He in- | duiges, however, the earnest hope that the disposi- | tion which has been equally manifested by both governments to remove all causes of difference be- | tween them will bring them to an agreement opon the incidental question which has arisen, and Will | allow no obstacle to deprive the world of the ex- | ample of advanced civilization presented by two | powerful States exhibiting the supremacy of LAW AND REASON OVER PASSIONS and deferring their own jus nts to the calm in- | terpretation of » disinterested and discriminating tribunal, 1 am, sir, your obedient servant, HAMILTON FISH. ‘To GENERAL Roper C, SCHENCK. NO. V. GENERAL SCHENCK TO MR. FISH. LEGATION OF THE UNITED SrarEs, } Lonpon, March 16, 1872. § On the day of the reception of your note of the 27th February, and within a few hours after its ar- rival, 1 was enabled to have an interview with Lord Granville at the Foreign OMice, with a view to making hitn acquainted, agreeably to your instruc- pina, Wi indie santana, ‘our communication had n 100) or. 6 goverment here Ww th grea anxiety. Following, in substance, the language ot re No. 145, I began 4 saying that, although Her ‘ajesty’s goverpment had Bet iuyited any reply to their note, but bad been content to make a naked announcement, unaccompanted by reasons or argu- meut, of their opinion that certain of the claims put forward by the United States in their case presented at Geneva did not come within the province of the Tribunal of Arbitration to decide, t euch was the earnest desire of my government r the settlement of all differences between the two countries, and for the successful carrying out | of a treaty which offered to the world so d an example of @ peaceful and effective method for the removal of international difficulties that the Presi. dent was most ready to accept the assurances of the friendly feelings which prompted that note, and that you had communicated to me in a de- me with some fulness. the opinion and views | the government of the United States on the point which they had raised. I said also to-Lord Gran- ville that I was authorized” to read to him fe and if he desired a bee od of it. He remarked tome that being Just then preased and | oceupied, as I must know he was, if I were to read it he should not Peoenny make it the subject of any comment at that time, and he said, if agreeable to me, therefore, and understanding that, anticipat- ing his request for @ copy, I had one ly pre- red, he would ask me to leave that with him that e might have it to LAY BEFORE THE CABINET AT AN EARLY MENTING. This, of course, I consented to do. I gave him the copy, therefore, leaving him to return to the House of Lords, from which he had been hurriedly called to meet his appointment with me. Before we Fires, however, I thought it proper to to lis Lordship that as Her Majesty’s government would undoubtedly take a litt! ime, per- haps a few days, to consider whether they should make any answer, and what answer to ‘this communication from the United States, if, at any time in the interval, he deemed it advisable in the interest of our two countries to have free, confidential conversation with me, or if he thought that good understanding might be promoted by ‘any exchal of unofficial suggestions touching some mode of issue from our prerns, complication, I would piwaye be happy, meet him and co- operate with him in such friendiy endeavor. He assented at once cordially to- the propriety of our Reeping. coreares in euch relation and iree, un- oficial intercourse with each other, but he did not express himself as hopefully as he thought I did of an ultimate satisfactory adjustment. have the honor to be, very respectful uy four obedient ser- vant, ROBERT C. SCHENCK, NO. VI. GENERAL SCHENCK TO MR. FISH. LEGATION OF THR UNITED STATES, Lonpon, March 21, 1872, Sir—I have barely time to transmit, so as to catch at Queenstown the mail which has left Liver- poe to-day, the reply of Lord Granville to your jespatoh. of the gith Febi Tt came to me at eleven o’clock last night, and printed “‘memo- randum” which accompanies it as an enclosure, and which ie to be taken as is park of the communi- cation, reached me only this noon. I send ee herewith, a copy of my answer to His Lordship, acknowle: the receipt of hia note and the ‘memorandum.’ You will e that Her Majesty’s government have construed your de- spatch to me as containing apparently an invgation TO OPEN FULLY THE DISQUGSION WITH YOU on the question of the right of the United States to include in their case presented at_Geneva any claim for indirect losses or damages. There is noth- fag ad however, either in the way of any proposal for removal ef the difiiculty hetween ‘Us or intimat what case of continued differe! Ke oon i Tis stil ce of o} , but the notice which was contained in Lond “oran: ville’s note of the 3d ult., accompanied now by the reasons which have led Her Majesty’s government to the conclusion which was then communicated. Lak i must close in haste, without further com- T have the honor to be, sir, a obedient servant, ROBERT ©. SOHENUK. ane ears oaks wo pany emorandum ;” General Schenck to Granvienove of Maroh 31, 107% NO, Vil. BABY GRANT FOREIGN OPFigR, March 20, i812. 8rr—] have laid before my Mr. i" seepptch, Of the 27th ult., of which, at my. and authorized oy eek, government, gave me Pe NS MR ge ag the President that he slucerely to promote $ap St Sates aha Do ey th avail’ themselves of the invitation whieh “Four government appear to have given, that they tate reasons wi induced them to make the. declaration contain note to you of the 30 ult., and which G the hope of obi Inclosures—1 Schenck; note ted im, out public papers, to show that t! government has, he which axe rise he been that the British government would indemnify the United Incident or co juential damages were after mentioned as incl in the accountability.” THE LIE DIPLOMATIC. This assertion dees net 27th August, and ending with the signature of the Convention of the 10th of Novem- ber, baa b Ris itanley and Mr. Reverdy John- son, by fourth article of which power was given to commissioners to adjudicate upon the class of claims referred to in the official ndence between the two governments as the “Alabama claims.’ The first subsequent mention of any claim for national losses was in a communication un- johnson which he tion, 8 14th of. mixed in eh, 1868, Lord Clarendon, in saawented that the term of the Conven- ed by him with Lord Clarendon on the january, which comprised a reference to # commission of the ‘‘Alabama claims” should enlarged #0 as to include all claims on the part of either government upon the other, AN ESSENTIAL OONDITION OF THE PROPOSAL being that in case a claim was set up by the United fetes ee on the recogniti of the Con- States federat as Le ed it should be open to the British government to advance claims on their such 28 @ claim for injury’ to British interests yy the assertion and exe! of belligerent rights be the United tse St British commerce. Lord ndon at once d ed to entertain the sugges- | United States, pr , jest, cannot understand upon what the pegotiations has been that they were négligence In respect to the escape of the Alabama | and the other vessels, and nave U no Hability for this position, Jesty’s government cow any sum would have been an admission on their country, and a confession whic! been expected from them, that they had been gullty of negligence. therefore, conld only declare at once that a pro- | Form could not be entertained. Commissioners on the part of this country immedi- ately made a counter proy J, namely, posal of arbitration, and of was accepted by shown by theirau' missioners to express the regret felt by Her Majesty's government for the escape, under whatever clr- cumstances, of from British ports, and for the depredations com- ter. not be underrated, nor can it have been expected by the government cessions of this im by this country if ti at liberty to insist upon all the extreme demands ehcn eney, had at any time suggested and brought ward. considerations which mad his Cig gents made by Reverdy [ allusion Lone «age gress, subsequently i be putin and take their chance, wit Derhy, while criticising the negotiation and terms of the treat withdrawal sion,” he sald, “of which I can see any trace upon American skle is tion, In Mr, Pish’s despatch of the 2hth September, | preposterous demand that we shoul! be respon- 1806, the government of the United States intl Bo for the premacare recognition of the Routh: mated that they con: Wl might be grounas | as & bel it Power, in company with that for some claims of a lai and more Fubdlic nature, | equally wild ii ination, which J believe never ex- thongh ft that time from | tended beyond t je minds of two or three speakers making them; but thé grounds indicated were not | in Congress, of Making us liable for all const itive lim! of Alabama and ot simtiar | dam: to trade and navigation whic! be vessels, or to any mere consequénces of such acts, | proved or su} to have grisen from our attt- Dor were thewe public claims then decided on refer- | tude during the war.” I observed that you were red toin manner as Al Claims, That ex- | present in House of Lords on that vccasion, and sion, ‘tl claims,” first you informed me, on the 16th of December, that 8 letter from Mr. Seward to Sir F. of the 12th | you were present pong Mog! speeches of Lord Rag- of January, 1967, had always been used the cor- | sell and myself, and you communicated the nce between the ts to de- | next day the full. newspaper report - of cide the claims of on account of | the debate to your government. Sir 8. their own direct. the depi ns of the |) Rouse of Common Alabama and other similar and had never | rej ~ in r words the substance been to or been treated as com- | my remarks on the limitation of the terms of refer- pre! bon A pablic. or national ciaim | ence, and oe Be Speen ee eens whatever of gov it of United ign relations tly before Cor ae it States. Down, therefore, to the when | must also have been reported to your ay jer Majesty's § = gover! 6 the | but neither on occasion of my speech, nor appointment of a Joint ission, | his, nor when the ratifi of the treaty were TO SRITLE THE M4 iow exchanged on the 17th of Ju: len, TOS and all F questions relation of the | tention to the fact that a different interpretation ited foward Her "s possessions in | was ced om the tri and by Her North Ai ne actual inst Her | Mi 'g government government of the it had been Or notl- ted States; nor, 80 fai Majesty's ‘on the of the ted States e: for the | ment are a' ‘was their interpretation, thus or operty of individuals of | publicly ex; ir by the states- the United States ‘and other similar or the press of the United Bt a. "g government con-| Her government must, therefore, ted, at the of. the government of the | their inability to understan the intimation Li, grt by the Higa ag fm convataed fa pore of of bres dealt with Commision, it was we been the fall aan fat “the pane Jabama PR dd the claitos for watiobal re claims” was used by-the ny have been forward in behalf of the previews naence end in favereate Of meee reaube tone “ ~d to signed Py, Lore and ‘Lord settled. qevetenest National of an . as | with Mr. that it interest of both those referred to in Mr.’ -eould not the- and. dates of neutrals be comprehended under the term ¢! generical! some of the points hitherto it open to known asthe “Alabama claims.” The possibill ug epntroversy should be sottiod, | of admitting, as a subject of negotiation, any claim | for indirect national loases HAS NEVER BEEN ENTERTAINED IN THIS COUNTRY, and it was, therefore, without the slightest doubt as to guch claims being inadmissible that the British High Commissioners were appointed and peccceee to Washington. At a meeting of the ritish and United States High ‘ommis- sioners on the sth of March, the latter, er @ general statement of the claims of the ceeded to say that, in the hopes ofan amicable settlement, no estimate was made of indirect losses, withont prejudice, however, to | the right of indemnification on their account in ihe event of no such settlement being made; and | they afterward proposed, by direction of the Presi- dent, that the Joint High Commission should agree upor a sum which should be paid by Great Britain to the United States in satisfaction of all the claime and the interest thereon. Mr. Fish says that the President earnestly hoped that the deliberations of the Commission would have re- | sulted in an acceptance by 3 esty's rh mentof this proposition, itor ita yeu ‘s gove ncen hope was founded, The position which the government of this country have maintained throughout all the | ullty of no | sherefore incurred any payment, and they still maintain | The only proud on which Her Ma- Id have been asked to pay part that there had been such negligence | as rendered = them = justly’ liable _to | pay a oaum compensation, ‘This | would have been on absolute surrender of the position which has always been held by this | never could have Her Majesty's High Commissioners, | of anamicable settiement in this partiowlar | Her Majesty’s High the pro- his proposal, after being a certain extent modified on suggestion the United States High Commissioners, yy them. The modification suggested by the United States High Commissioners and accepted by those of Great Britain was a con- cession of no slight importance on the part of this country—namely, that the principles which should govern the arbitrators in the consideration of facts should be first agreed upon; and this-concession was very materially enhanced when, in order to strengthen the friendly relations between the two countries and make satisfactory provision for the future, they further agreed that these principles should be those contained in the rules in tie sixth article of the treaty, for they thus the retroactive effect of rules to nevertheless, they feel bound to declare that they could not assent as astatement of principles of international law in force at the time when the Alabama claims arose. The friendly spirit of Her bry i Be government was farther horizing Her Majesty’s High Com- the Alabama and the other vessels mitted by those vessels, and by their agreeing that this arenes of regret should be formally re- corded in the treaty. Nor did Her Majesty's govern- ment object to the introduction of claims for the expense of the pursuit and capture of the Alabama and other vessels, notwithstanding the doubt how far those claims, though mentioned during the conferences as direct claims, came within the proper: scope of the arbitration. They acquiesced in the proposal to exclude from the negotiation their claims on behalf of Canada against the United States for injuries suffered from Fenian raids, an acquiescence which was due partly to a desire on their part to act in a spirit of concili- ation, and partly to the fact stated by Her Majesty's High Commissioners, that a portion of these claims was of a constructive charac- The importance of the concessions must of the United States that con- rtanee Would have been made United States were still to be Her Majesty's government considered themselves justified in treating the waiver of indirect claims in the event of the High Commissioners of the United States as one which appited to any form of amicable settlement, and, therefore, comprised form of amicable settlement proposed by the Bet cae een in and re the treaty. Such a waiver was, in fact, a neccasary condition of the success of negotiation. in amicable settlement proffered by in like manner the ers, accepted on part of in The preainble of Tt was in ad been made that vermment ratified the treaty. y's government are anxious that the le them hold this belief il belief that this waiver the British Her Maj should be more Sol oxpiainet. to the government of the United State: t can be done in the form ofa letter, and I have accordl embodied them in & memorandum, which I have the honor to enclose, and he may be read ant es part of my ppd tion, Majesty's govern: jo not. is compatent for ermment of the geny that it United States, an it is for thamselves, to assert that their own interpretation of the treaty ia the correct one, But what Her Majesty's government maintain is that the naturaland peer spicd construction of the language used in the treaty and protocols is in accordance with the views which they entertain, and sustains their assertions that the terms of refer- ence to the arbitrators are limited to direct claims, inasmuch as direct claims only have throughout the cor! ndence been recognized and repeatedly de- fined Under the name of the ‘Alabama claims." There are some passages in Mr. Fish’s despatch in which he mda tie introduction into the American of claims for indirect losses and in- juries wi T cannot allow to pass without more cial remark. It is stated that they are put for- Ward in the case not as claims for which a specific mand is made, but as losses and injuries conse- quent upon the acts complained of, and necessarily be taken into equitable consideration settlement of all _ differences two countries, as not reliuguished in the treaty, but covered by one of ite two alternatives. Her jenty’s gov- ernment do not perceive what “alternative the treaty can cover these claims. If, Mdeed, by this Ia Mr. Fish is to be understood as re- ferring to the two different modes provided by ar- ticles seven and ten of the treaty for arriving at the amount of the payment to be made by Great Britain in event of any liability being established the answer seems viz.:—Tbat these alterna- tives are applicable to the settlement of the amount of dam and — not the Hability. Again, Mr. Fish states treaty was not an amicable settlement, but only an agreement between the governments as to the mode of reachin; Bet- tiement, and thet no proffer of withholding an estimate of indirect losses can be claimed asa waiver until the result of the arbitration is arrived at; but he overlooks the fact that the treaty is called an amicable settlement, not merely in reta- tion to the ‘Alabama claima,’”’ but as an entirety, and even im relation to the “Alabama claims” alone it must cle: be taken that the amica- ble settlement wht it professed to provide ‘was arrived at from the moment when the treaty containing the nt to go to arbitration a ssa tne claims was and ratified. If, according to Mr. Fish’s view, an amtcabie sectticment upon a reference to arbitration can only be arrived at by an adjudication of the claims, it is obvious that no waiver of any government claims could under such circumstances ever be made; for before the time for the walver on this supposition had arrived the claima would already have been decided upon. That Her Majesty’s government never intended to refer these claims to arbitration, and that in rat- ifying the Porth they never contemplated their be- ing reyived in the argument before the arbitrators, must haye been obvious to you from the lang used in the debate in the House of Lords, on the 12th of June, on_ the motion for an address to the Queen praying Her Majesty to refuse to ratifp the treaty. On that occasion I distinctly stated this to be the understanding of Her Majesty's govern- ment, and May, to proof that these indirect claims had “entirely dit uoted the. very protocol of the 4th of which I have referred above, as @ Cairns, to. whose "een in the United States Con: said that extravi it claims e Was met peared.’ When Lord i an expression of dissent.. Moreover, Lord in other respect rticularized the of indirect pe ag othe only bana the withdrawal: of that utterly 15, 1872.—TRIPLE SHEET, hoped that such a settlement had secured by the rules to which they have given their | cannot see that it would be ad- | equipped, or which had received au; reat Britain, or in her colo operation of those vessels, showed, 1. Extensive direct losses in tl destruction of a large number of vessels, witty cargoes, and in the heavy national ex- penditures on the pursuit of the cruisers, an® 2. Indirect injury, in the transfer of a large of the American commercial marine to the flag, in the enhanced payments of insurance, Im ongation of the war, and in the addition of um to the cost of the war and the spppres+ sion of the reoellion, and also showed, 3. That Great Britain, by reason of fallare im the proper observance of her duties as a neutral,; had become justly liable for the acts of thove had been fitted as armed or jes, and of tha, he capture ane assent. But the: vautageous to either country to render the obliga- | force in tions of neutrality so onerous as they would become tug natare were to be treated as pro, international arbitration. Whate: construction muy be placed upon the first article of npossible to sever the terms of ref- erence therein contained from the rules in the sixth nd the meastre of liability under the arbl- the treaty it is to these rules, may by any act or omission fall to fulfil any of the duties The United States and Great Britain have bound themselves by the treaty to ob- serve these rules as between themselves in future. They have, moreover, bound themsel these rules to the knowledge of other maritime | Powers and to invite them to accede to them, | voted that those Powers set forth in them, roperty which had to about fourteen mill dollars without interest, which amount was liable to be greatly increased by claims which had bee that the cost to which the government ad been put {n the pursuit of cruisers could easily be ascertained by certificates of government 2e-+ | counting officers; that in the hope of an amicabi settlement no estimate was made of the indirect losses, without prejudice, however, to the right to’ indemnification on their account in the event of net such settlement being made, missioners further stated that they hoped the Bri ish commissioners would be able to place upom' it. hevg been ¢ upon @ neutral ‘ha liability, por recommend the a Are the government and of the United States themseives prepared to unde: take the obligation of payti ligereut the expenses of war and other indirect data, States are neutral they can be oother natlons, ‘The American con if when the United shown to have per- | AN EXPRESSION OF REGRET by Her Majesty's government for the depredation# committed by the vessela whose acts were now They also proposed that the Joint High Commission should agree uj which shonid be paid by Great Britain to the United States in satisfaction of all the claims and the tn: terest thereon, The British commissioners abstained from reply. ing in detail to the statement of the American commissioners in the hope that the necessity upon a lengthened controversy might be obviated by the adoption of so fair a mode of settle. ment as that which they were instructed to pose, and they had now to repeat on behalf of government the offer of arbitration, commissioners expressed their regret at this deci sion of the British commissioners, and said, further, that they could not consent to submit the question ol the liability of Her Majesty's government to arbt- tration, uniess the principles which should govern the arbitrators in the consideration of the facts could be first agreed upon. These principles were subsequently discussed and agreed upon, and incor« rated inthe draft of the sixth article of the! On the 6th of Ma part of any one of the three rules through a want of | due diligence on the part of their executive officers? | To attach such tremendous consequences to ap un- intentional violation of neutrality, tt might be a nee, would strike a heavy blow ‘There are seareely under discussion. single act of negtiy at the neutrals of by ®& neutral, as these were once admitted they would present, without any such compensation, the risk of imtol: With respect to the disclaimer made xpectation or wish on the part i States government to obtain any un- Teasonable pecuniary compensation on account by Mr. Fish of any e: here to observe tion of amount the British people necessarily been obliged Mook to the nature and grounds of the claims as they are stated In the case ofthe United States, and ree, been unable to form a judgment from any other data of the expectations of those by whom the claims are advanced. could be considered as well grounded in principle, 1; appears the magnitude of the damages which might be the result of their admission is enor- ‘The grounds of these views are more fully stated in the third part of the enclosed =memoran- If these claims the commissioners gratifying to the British commissioners to be as- soctated with colleagues who were animated with? lesire as themselves to bring: about a settement eqnally honorable and just te ‘ish replied that from the tsi conference the American commissioners had been’ impressed by the earnestness of desire manifested by the British commissioners ) TO REACH A SETTLEMENT. worthy of the two Powers, could never cease to appreciate the geuerous spirit and the open and friendly manner in which ¢! British Commissioners had met and discussed ti several questions that had led to the conclusion ot the treaty, which, it was hoped, would receive th ople of both countries, and would prove the foundation of a cordial and friendly und between them for all time to come. Two days afterward the treaty was signed, with tl following preamble :— , Rer Britannic Majesty and the President of the. # of America, being desirou for an amicable settlement of all causes o' ence between the two countries, have for that pard pose appointed their respective plenipotentiarics, and the said plenipotentiaries, after having o: changed their full powers, which were found to in due and proper form, have agreed to and con- ler Majesty’s government tl statement made by the American Commissioner 01 the 8th of March contained a waive for indirect logses contingent on an amicable sett! ment being arrived at, and this waiver consisted THE CONFEDERATE COTTON €LAIMA, the same sincere Mr. Fish has appealed to the proceedings at the Washington Claims Commission tn connection with | both countries, Mr. the Confederate.cotton claims. ernment 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 claims have or have not been duly made, them, either wholly extent, according meaning of the treaty, used as to the powers of the ¢ is the function of the Washington Commission to decide upon a variety of general claims not of one kind, nor limited or defined beforchand, and Her Majesty’s agent was instructed that ‘ima Jjacie, be to present such claims as private individuals might tender tor that purpose jor acceptance or rejection by the Commission, Her Majesty's government not intending to make themselves responsible either for the merits of the ticular claims or for the arguments by which ey might be supported. THB JURISDICTION OF THE GENEVA COURT OF ARBI- TRATION ON THE BONDS. The jurisdiction of the Geneva Tribunal was lim. vticular class and description of facts arc as follows:—On the 17th of November, in pursuance of the general instructions which had been given to Her Majesty's claim upon a bond issued by the so-called erate States for a sum forming part of a loan called the “cotton loan,” contracted by those States, and ment of which certain cotton seized by ited States was alleged to have been pothecated by the Confederate government, was dl at Washington, and on the you that the United States government objected to claims of this kind being even presented. delay took place in consequence of unavoidable causes, with some of which and there were others, suc! only of communteating ir Her Majesty's gov- His colicagues and he milar words being neva Tribunal. approval of the cluded the followin, In the view of 8. aMirmative statement that in hope of able settlement no catimate was made of the rect losses. The words ‘in hope of an amicabl settlement” are tn themselves grammatically genes ral, and unless qualified by a subsequent iimitat mean, inthe hope of any such settlement as thd ge to fall under the phrase ist I learned from parties shall acknowled “amicable settlement.” 0 are well acquainted, as the necessity not with my collegues, NOW THIS PART OP THE WAIVER being a declaration in which the other party ha an interest, and so far of the nature of the ¢ so limited by an express specification following it immediately, or at least before the arty had tuken any step in reliance on ii But no such under the same there might be included claims shot ally cieteren ‘The des; jenty’s agent, givin: ‘latin, aud oft United States’ agent, 6th of December. tches from Her the detalis of the nature of lemurrer made to it by the did not reach me until the in the meantime ascer- tained from ‘Sir E. ‘Thornton that the expression “acts committed” had been used by mutual agree- ment in the negotiations which preceded the ap- intment of the High Commission, with a view claims of this clare from the consideration of igh Commission, those words bein; in the twelfth artic! to private claims. The question was brought be- fore the Cabinet at ite next meeting on the 11th, decided on the 14th, as recorded in The decision was that rate cotton claim shonid not be resented unless in the case of bonds exchanged for cotton which had thereby become the actual roperty of the claimant, and directions were given itch to be sent to this effect, and on the 16th I informed you that you mi Fish that Her Majesty’s agent wou resent any claims that did not come e provisions of the treaty, although understanding not necessarily have extended beyond the re- the Commissioners of the claims by which the Com- le whether any claim is preferred within the true intent and meaning of the treaty, as was done with various claims under a similar article in the Claims Convention of 1853. Her Majesty’s government acceded to the con- struction which the United States government put upon that sonra a jeaty’s government were guided in coming to the ison on the 14th. They desired to put the most favorable construction upon any understand- ing which the United States government might 4 to exist. Information reached me aph of the adjudication, vernment had not expected merits of the claim commissioners. This required a reconsideration of the particular juently, retains the general chs as its literal and granmati: It might be said that the concluding hrase," ‘no estimate was made of the in josses,’* had a special regard to the form o: ttlement thereafter proposed by the A mmissioners—viz., the paynient of a le of the treaty with rogat withheld in the hope that that proposal woud accepted, and if the view of the Americ: sioners was that the acceptance of that alone would constitute the ‘amicable sett in consideration of which the estimate of indir josses was withheld, then the next step fu when the proposal waé declined, was to pres: or if not then, and Was final} that estimate, in seme other id write to Mr. aid be instructed But they did neither. They did not intimate ve notice to the British commisstoners that thetr hope of an amicable settlement had been fros- Nor dl they say anything this first portion of tha e rejected proposal, and rasc, “an anticable settlement,” is left to stand in Its origina) and grammatical gonerality, TRE SECOND PART OF THE WALVER is as follows :— Without prejudice, however, to the tion om their account—i. in the event of suc trated or disap) to the effect ol under the fourteenth articl waiver dependent on missioners have ‘ht of indemnifica- bn account of indirect losses ettlement being made, ng obviously depends upon the ig of the words ‘no such settlement.’ grammatically quali By referring to the an dent expression, “amicable settlement,” word “settlement.” the next morning by telegr: which Her Majesty’ to take place, upon m of indirect jorses, amicabie settlement being made, It Is to be observed that at r posal whatever had been made for payment of a gum, or for any particular form or mode of remaining question is, whether the treaty was Itself an amicable settle- ment, or which is the same thing for the purposes the argument, the road to it. This question 1s answered by the reamble of the treaty, which declares that, the States had, as well as Hor ven his commissioners certain power provide for an amicable scttle:nent iferences, in which the Alabama claling were included; that these powers had been com- paved 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 amicable settlement is here ‘distinctly recognized, @ particular solution of the pencing ques 4, Which had been proposed and set aside, but and {6 nothing, it, y the — mail by telegraph to Sir E. Thornton to arrange with Mr. Fish that the presentation of claims, which appeared to be mantlestiy without the terms | of the treaty, Goer be bee ates Jeb Majesty's agent was 0! infon a claim vps that ou he hot to be permitted, hat an agreement to by Sir B, Thornton and Mr. Fish. Mi yeaty's. <rummput bas pltice acted in accord. njeaty’s governmen de ds with the lecision of the Cabinet of the 14th of New claims of the like character have parties who were unwill- decision of the commis- applicable to their own case: claims, under instructions from Her ernment, have not been presented. THB GRNERAL ARGUMENT AGAINST INDIRECT DAMAGE CLAIMS, T have now placed in your hands for examination vernment of the United States a state- in the opinion of Her Majesty's government,suficiently shows that claims rect losses are not within the meaning of the treaty ; that they were never intended to be included t; that this was pub- re the ratification, when the error, if any, might have ‘been corrected; that such claims are wholly beyond the reasonable scape of any treaty of arbitration whatever, and that to submit them for the decision of the tribunal would rnictous consequences ms and to the future I appreciate the desire sub- expressed by the rompted the declaration made fajesty’s government on the 3d ot February, no less than the friendly and i which toa bates See Majesty's government, not as the commence- ment of a diplomatic an act of compliance with sident of the Uniti ance with the di been tendered to him ing to acquiesce in AN OBJECT OF NEGOTIATION which had been provided for in @ manner satisfac tory to both parties, and the provision. for which The . reservation, therefore, made by the American commissioners ‘The waiver remained in full force, and the indirect losses *vere excluded by the preamble of the treaty from the scope of the he reasons whi was embodied in the treaty. had not come into play. PART I1,—ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON, Upon the construction of the Treaty of Washing- ton, apart from the protocols, there appear to bo to the interest ol peace of the world. stantially but indirect? ment of the United reasons which have me on behalf of 1, What clans are described by the words “tho claims generally known a4 the Alabama’ claims 2, What vessels are described by the words, “tho several vessels which generally known as the Alabama claims 8, What claims are deseribed by the words “All the sali claims growing out of acts committed by the aforesaid vessels, and generally known as tho Alabama claims” (being the words in which tha subject matter of the reference to arbitration mn is defined) ? ese questions will be examined separ ately:—1. What claims are described by the worls, ¢the claims generically known as Alabana claims? The word “known” signifies that (hia collective expression had acquired a definite sense, mutually understood from its use ications between the same have given rise to that most reasonable are sure that the President will be no less anxfous than they are that the conduct of both governments should conform to the true méan- ing and intent of the instrument they have jointly |, Whether that meaning is drawn ritative documents themselves or from collateral considerations, or from both sources ASSURANCES OF VERY HIGH CONIDRRATION—A RED TAPE VALEDICTORY. Entertaining thomeelves no doubt of the suf- yunds on which their judgment ink it the Cre once most re- from the aut in previons commu parties. The word “generically” natar: that all the claims are intend: ‘The “claims” itself na nted or notified, ification of particalars, CORRESPONDENCE ations must therefore be What demand had been ; 2% What had been the actual or without a ful THE DIPLOMATIC receded the negot referred to to discov: presented or notitl ‘ntimation of any clulm oe 1802, which spoke on the he Cone and ol en j oa hea British Jariediction, Great Britain @ “4 gape ey jar re’ British vessels" or originally fitted out in the United States were red to a commission to sums for full compensation. received directions from his for thus sustained, ficiency of the they itful amd most frie! United Le ted to ag those oy wo ; Majest; ornmen: have jad Detore the Presi- the conclusion which me on the 34 of to Sal or ea” dent ample proof | the depredations co! }HMORANDUM, Pant 1.—On the waiver of claims for indirect he th protocol tl sixth ps he construction of the treaty. Parr 3.—On the amount of t! Jossen, Parti, on the waiver for indirect Saino for testing losses contained in the thirty-sixth protocol. Hor Majest; tobe to furnish fe 8 had arjeen Ely, toable settlement ta that the Ame! ed op the 8th of March that the his waded that he hai rmment to wate injaries aire: February, 1863; 291] CONTINUED ON TENTH PAGE, the 4th of May iesione