The New York Herald Newspaper, July 28, 1872, Page 8

NEW YORK HERALD, SUNDAY, JULY 28, 1872—TRIPLE TUR GENEVA. ARBITRATION, ———_——— Earl Granville Summing Up and Defin- ane ine ing Great Britain’s Position. Profuse Quoting, of Ameri | “Fit acts comptained of in the rst extract, will Authorities. Calling Up the Diplomatic Ghosts of Adams, Johnson and Moiley. INDIRECT DAMAGES VS, FENIAN CLAIMS. Secretary Fish’s Dignity Aroused and Plain Talk Resorted To. THE DELICATE POINTS. Granville Denying What Was Not Asserted and Sir Stafford Northoote “Promis- ing” Without Authority, WASHINGTON, July 27, 1872. ‘The following are unpublished despatches which passed previous to the meeting of the Geneva ar- bitration, regarding the question damages :— of indirect No, 36. The following despatch was published in the supplement to the London Gazette, communicated in accordance from this government, by {a letter, dated May 31, 18 May 17, and | with instructions ir Edward Thornton received June Li— EARL GRANVILLE TO SIR EB. THORNTON, FOREIGN OFFicr, May e Sm—Her Majesty’s government have refrained | may have sustained by the recognition of the tnsur- | which Mr. Fish has taken these extracts. in o preceding paragraph, :—“I | adverse to such a It would be as | constructive claims, upon which the of this focl Gute cortats the of faults has | I hear from ev Soistis spares, to to en se coun’ had siready been so strongly ‘bee! ‘side of Great Britain. the con- | donment of the its and a disregard of the honor | When were by Mr. Sumner, cession of ought not to have been this govern! it. Her Majesty’s government Mr. asks, ‘How could it that so im- made; second, u) our earnest appeals it ought | never learned ‘Mr. Sumner’s views were en- | portant a feature of the n as this to have been et r rescinded,” dorsed by the government of the United Stat walver as now represented to be was left to infer- tch goes on to state the conviction of | Mr. Fish next mentions his instructions to Mr. Mot- | ence, or to argument, from intentions never ex- can pecge that the proceedi of the | ley of the 25th of September. . These instructions, | pressed to the Commissioners or the govern- in the confederacy | however, were not communicated to Her Majesty’s | Ment of the United States until after the treaty was were not merely unfriendly and wagenoroos, ‘ernment, and when Mr. Motiey told Lord Claren- i?” The amplitude and the comprehensive entire! just. In another part of Mr. "8 mn, On the 1Qth of Juae, ue, that the Convention | force of the first article, or the of despatch complaints, not claims, are noticed as | was objected to because it embraced only the | the treaty, did not escape the ical attention of ha’ been made by Mr. Adams on the 30th of De- | claims of individuals, and had no reference to those | Her ne Commissioners, but was any effort cember, 1862, 14th and 22d of March 1863, and 28th of | of the two governments on each other, and, lastly, | made to limit or reduce the scope of the submission that it set no question and laid down no princi- | or to exclude indirect claims ¢ Ple, he proceeded to speak of the ‘The answer to this is that, in the first place, the be seen, on ig the entire Kae » to have “RISK AND RESPONSIBILITY” British High Commissioners believed that after the been that vessels owned by British subjects have | incurred by a government which conferred belliger- | Walver they were with the United States ent rights, and thus his High Commissioners upon the of the terms of becn and are yet in the constant praction of de- parting from British ports, laden contraband of war and many other commodities, with the in- tent to break the blockade and to preter itch of the 14th of March, 1963, resentations naturall, basis wie , ‘4 the submission, and, in the second place, that these did limit the scope of the submission. The British High Commissioners, fa the information which 1 connected themselves Mr. Johnson's pro- Loge with regard to the mutual claims of two governments, ae admits that the war. The d in his despatch of the h of tember | they have furnish Her Majesty’s govern- refers to certain intercepted correspondence re- | he “made no claim or demand for either | ment both Mnqid the nogotlation and since the lating to the proce and supposed intentions | direct or indirect injuries.” These indirect in- | presentation of the American case, have uniformly of Confederate agents, blockade runners and to the | juries could not, therefo. ‘e Teceived | maintained that the claims for indirect losses were cotton loan. the designation of — “, claims’? | not included, nor intended by him to be included, The complaint on the 27th, as I have already ex- | from that rcs eae Indeed, on examining the ex- | in the terms in the submission to arbitration, and plained, referred to the cotton loan and to | tracts which he gives from it with their contex' you are aware that the British Hi Com- these proceedings of Confederate agents. The | 1s apparent that the ‘vast national injuries” which | missioners objected to the adoption form despatch of the 28th of April poains, “I am in- | he states that he presented in it are ascribed to | of reference to the arbitrators which might structed to inform Your Lordship that the govern- for its vagueness be taken to permit the other causes than the acts committed by the Con- federate cruise: 4 ment of the United States has heard with surprise te C1 TB. introduction of such claims, and that it was not and regret of the negotiation of a loan in this ANALYSIS OF THE STATE PAPER. until after lengthened discussion in the Commission city,” and proceeds to state that this transaction ‘The first extract, beginning ‘The number of our that the terms of reference, as they now stand in must bring to an end all concessions of whatever | ships thus directly destroyed,” &c., follows a para- | the treaty, were settled. form that fei have been heretofore made for miti- ‘raph co! ag of the proclamation of neutral- Her jesty’s Somecnmene cannot acknowledge geting or alleviating the rigors of the blockade . “In virtue of the Frere maritime en- | that the nature of the claims submitted was left to regard to the shipment of cotton, and con- | terprises in the ports of Great Britain, which would | inference, On the contrary, the precise ¢' re- cludes:—“Iam sure that it is with the greatest reluctance the United States government finds itself compelled, by the offensive acts of apparently otherwise have been piratical, were rendered law- ful, and thus Great Britain became and to the end continued to be the arsenal, the navy yard and the le Fag to arbitration were ciosely defined and lim- ed, Mr. Fish writes as though the reference to arbi- irresponsible parties bent upon carrying on hos- | treasury of the Confederacy. “A was | tration comprised “differences, &c., ‘complaints’? tilities under the shelter of Meutraltty, to restrict | thus presented without Brecedent or parallel in the | and “all claims,” but the British High Comtalasion: rather than to expand the avenues of legitimate | history of civilized nations.” ers especially guarded ogninas tl The claims trade. The responsibility for this, 4, ¢., for this re- ‘The second extract runs thus:—‘‘We complain | submitted must be both “c! aims growing out of the triction, must rest mainly upon those who, for | that the insurrection in the Southern States if it rts committed by the aforesaid vessels"—t, ¢., motives best known to themselves, have labored | did not exist was continued and attained its en- | Alabama and other cruisers—and claims ‘gen- and continue to labor 80 strenuously and effectually | during vitality by means of the resources it drew | erally own as the a claims.” to furnish the means for reat Britain. We complain that by reasonof | The use of the words “acts committed” THE PROTRACTION OF THE STRUGGLE. the imperfect discharge of its neutral duties on the | admittedly excludes the question of blockade-run- I have reviewed the passage cited by Mr. Fish | part of the Queen’s government Great Britain be- | ning and concession of belligerent rights from the in support of his ent that the “Alabama | came the military, naval and financial basis of | arbitration, and the cification of the claim as claims” include other claims than those for the | insurgent warfare against the United States. We | claims “generically” known as the “Alabama claims” limits them to the class of direct claims, which it has, I trust, been abundantly shown were alone known at the time as ‘‘Alabama claims.” PLAGIARY, Mr. Fish attaches some importance in support of his views to the words “growing out of” and “gen- complain of the destruction of our merchant marine by British ships, manned by British seamen, armed with British guns, despatched from Britisn dock yards, sheltered and harbored in British ports. We complain that by reason of the policy and acts of the Queen's Min sters injury incalculable actual losses of American citizens, in order to show how little support they afford to it. But this is almost superfuous, a8 a conclusive answer is afforded by the very volume of despatches from Mr. Reverdy Johnson, in a despatch to Mr. Sew- ard, dated February 17, 1869, page 767, contain- | was inflicted on the United States." erically;” but the first phrase is taken from Mr. ing a report of ‘his Negotiations with Her The third extract respecting the vast national | Adams’ letter of the 31st of October, 1863, when, in Majesty's government, states, “I hear that in some | injuries Is followed inthe despatch by a ooere forwarding anumber of memorials and other papers quarters objections are made to the Claims Con- | explaining the various causes of injury which Mr. | Connected with the depredation of the vessel for- vention, for which I was not prepared.” Fish has omitted to notice :—Nor does he attempt | Merly called the Oreto, and now the Fiorida, he observed that “the conclusion to which it would seem that both governments arrive in regard to the disposition to be made of the claims growing out of the depredations of the Alabama and other now to measure the relative effect of the various causes of injury as whether by untimely recogni- tion of belligerency by suffering the fitting of rebel cruisers, or by the supply of ships, arms and muni- First—tt \s said, 1 am told, that the claims to be submitted sbould not be all that have arisen subse- quent to July, 1853, 8, 1872. from continulng an argumentative discussion with ‘the government of the United States upon the | our commerce by the Alabama and other vessels. scope and the intention of the artic of Washington, relating to the arbit: Alabama claims. There are, howev ages in Mr. Fish’s dispatch on this subject of 26th ultimo, upon which it seems desirable that for | 3 in the Treaty on on the some pas Your own information, and for use in any future communications with the government of the U States, you should be put in possession of the view of Her Majesty's government. In the first. plac Mr. Fish takes exception to the assertion in my letter of the 20th of March that although it is true that in some of thee Vague suggestions were made as to possible liabill- | ry extending bey Yes of this cou mo claims were ever de: certainly none rlier letters of Mr. Adams pnd the direct except these direct claims of American citizens. Mr. Fish states that I cannot be supposed to intend more than to say that the claims ior indirect or national losses anu injuries were not formulated by the United States government of set forth in detail, and as not, however, contine 1m: claims of this nature were ever defined or formu- | Jated, but added that described as “Alabama claims.’’ admits that the claims for Josses were not formulated or defined, but pro- | been nd the amount there- specificdemand, T did eit to saying that no no such claims had ever Mr. Fish indirect or national ceeds to cite various passages in the correspond- ence in which he considers that they were brought forward. claims.” interspersed with He does not fn which they were mention described one as instance “Alabama The fact is that throughout the corre- ndence the representations made by the United | tes government respecting the aetual claims for | injuries sustained by American citizens from the dep- | redations of the “Alabama and other eruisers were complaints. of the supposed mature recognition of the belligerent rights of e Confederate States by the issue of Her Ma: "8 proclamation of neutrality and of the proceed- 4ng of blockade runners. Nearly all the passages cited by Mr. Fish will be found, when read with their context, to have reference to these complaints and to the ing tothe letter of the indefinite founded on them. memorandum 20th suggestions of labilit On the other hand, on turn- enclosed in my of March, it 1s apparent that the phrase “Alabama Claims’? has uniformly been used to distinguish the actual claims on ac- | and count of the acts committed by the Alabama and | can be accomplished, the other cruisers from these complaints of the “attitude” assumed by Great Britain, lays great stress on the statem letter of the 20th of November, ed to “solicit the destruction vessels by the Alat memorandum, M of inclosures in the dations committed on the t in Mr, Adams’ He was in- 1ress y thus ned wer Mr. Ad Ocmul, I dams spo! high se $ upon Merchant vessels by the Alabama, and of the righ of reclamation of thi vO ns; aud referred to the States for the of their ci Commission under the tr dent for awarding compensition, ‘word in the letter to sugge: INDIRKCT OR CONST! In the despatch of the 19th of Seward, in a similar manner, uses the te claiins,” with obvious forward by the United citizens, those mdecd be had been indicated in the Lord Russell must remark the lth of February, 1869, V to the British governme some important words he artduces from Lord Ru Lyons on March 27, 1863. Mr. Adams aud aliuding. “I count of United prop- ins ty of 1794 as a prece- There is not a government of the damage done it to th’ 1863, Mr. m “its ference to the cia é at tes on behalf of Amefican we the only claims t at eapondence between to which he was at this despatel of hot communicated . Fish has omitted . Which to Lard wives am ae- he despate A CONVERSATION WITIT MR, ADAMS, at the close of w the Confed: favor of the denied this try, of which th Proof, to America, and thus Britain, with and secure ¢ States, w e hope to establish by sures. Mr. Fish omits the words is an additional proof, whi show onteXt produce a view to aid the Confede oly of the trade of t independence 1 Lord Russell satd that twas | 30, 1 his belief that if all the federais by British sub Of war were Weighed ag s the | fed proposi said, there Is % manifest oniederate jon istance given to ti nd British munitions nst similar aid given to lance would M as totally a state of ex bring on a wa i wit Sou these conspirators th ile f which the Confed- that Mr. Adams was then speaking, not of th the Alabama, but of the assistance in money and materials which he — conside was improperly to the Confederate — States "by ade running and the cotton loan, Mr. Jevters of 7th ment it ik unecessary fo those which 1 ha have been the tion, ne claim and’ the was made ‘with the * rhary 14, we Alavann Lyte, page 625, te the regard laws arbil pag alter t to and Le 4 April Ruseell's letter of tne ton in the memorandum, me nS On them, pury W grievat claims.” 'T Was not Majesty's government, but, third volume of the in whieh it possibility paragraph qu and 20th May ith of May, 1 part se further ob- not reply io Whatever may 1o make ar ir. Fish doe ady overed, to require ind presented or sof whieh in no way complaint identified espateh of Feb Her comumnicuted to on ret Appeudix to the is given, it ay “1 think that the cou declining every torn of t have in view nivrely prosper ination: So Jong as the justice of our ¢ nied by Her Maye no pre used to s claims clair for Mr. out t Seward ind nd enandoai, nexed to the despaich from Adams of the 27th of August, 1 Lord Stanley, aud which are claims, are mentioned in that CLAIMS UPON and “our claims.” that from Mr, Seward to Mr. Acains, of the vd of | Mr, Johnson to Mr, Fish on the loth of M May, was likewise not communicated to Her Ma- | Ifan opinion may be formed from the pubic press, | jeat's government, y's governnient t tion and sation for by the Al or to refer any Stat I J the United St jal marin jon ext t to inaireet i connection Will ‘a at decline fe’ ‘The claims of S against at Britain Means of depredations upd committed on the high se the Alabama, the Florida, the of which 3 mary WAS ape bly private WHICH Wh INSIST ‘The next despatch referred to, The context clearly shows that he injuries from the first unfriendly or wrongful pro- cOding reserred Lo the goncessign of beliigescucy, Mr. Fish | greatly in | tiapd unjust mea. | taken | . | governn Second—That no provision is made for the submis- sion of any losses which our government, as such, vessels issuing from British ports appears to ren- der further discussion of the merits of the question unnecessary, No mention whatever of indirect or constructive claims had been made at this time, and the claims to which Mr, Adams referred are manifestly the cluims for actual damages. When the same ex- pression is used again, it must be taken to have the same meaning. DISLIKE TO SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, T will not foliow Mr. Fish into the etymology of the word “generically.” “Generally known as the Alabama claims,” seems to be the same as the class of claims known as the “Alabama claims.” The phrase used in the Stanley-John- son convention serves to distinguish this class of claims irom every other class of claims which the United States government might have to pre- | fer, The “Alabama claims’? have been desig- tions of war to the Confederates or otherwise in whatsoever manner.” * Lord Clarendon’s memorandum of observations on Mr. Fish’s despatch, like the despatch itself, | As regards the second objection, he urges, I | touched on various topics besides that of the Con- | am at a loss to in rine What would. be the measure | federate cruisers, and Her Majesty’s government | ofthe damage which it supposes our government | cannot admit that, because Mr. Motley read a des- | should be indemnifled for, how 1s it to be ascer- | patch to Lord Clarendon on the 12th of January, tained, by what rule ts it to be measured. 1870, stating that Mr. Fish had not inelnded it | A NATION'S HONOR GAN HAVE NO COMPENSATION IN | “among the papers respecting the Alabama | MONEY, claims,’ therefore all the subjects mentioned and the depredations of the Alabama were of prop- Ww Alabama clams, | erty in which our nauon had no direct pecuniary an they admit that because Mr. Ber- interest. If it be said that those depredations pre- | nard in the fourteenth chapter of his work gave vented the sending forth of other commercial en- | certain extracts from Mr. Fish’s despatch, under | terprises the answer is twofold, the head of “Alabama claims,” that despatch be- First-—That if they had been sent forth the nation | came the standard by which the claims known as would have had no direct interest in them; and the ‘Alabama claims’ were to be measured. It yweond—Tiat tf conid not be known that happens, moreover, that in the extracts given by | gents as belligerents and the depredations upon would have been undertaken. Upon Mr. Bernard, given’ in the chapter to which Mr. | neted as a class of claims to avold the misappren- | nd, theveiore, could the nation demand com- | Fish refers, the three passages cited by Mr. Fish in | Sion which at one time seemed to have occurred ton in money on either account? And if it | his present despatch as relating to indirect in- | to Mr. Seward, that the words “Alabama claims’? it’ to go into the Treasury for the | juries and national losses, are omitted. might be construed as meaning only claims on ac- use of the ent orto be distributed among | TH IDENT’S MESSAGE IN DECEMBER, 1869, count of injuries sustained from the one vessel Ala- those who ve en 1 in such enterprises, | It only remams to notice the President’s Message | ama. The plirase itself goes very far to define its own limited meaning; for while it is quite intelligi- ble that for brevity’s sake the name of one vessel should stand for others ot a particular class of which it is the principal example, it appears to be contrary to all reason that the name of such a par- of December, 180%. This Message does not mention the “Alabama claims,” but speaks of the “inturies: resulting to the United States by reason of the course adopted by Great Britain during oar late civil war.” and how many of them there, and how are they | to be ascertained t France recognized the insur- gents belligerents, and this may have tended to prolong the war. ‘This, too, it may be said, was a violation of her duty and atfected our honor. If we can claim indemnity for our nation for snch a I have thus been able to show, upon | ticular slip should be used to describe claims for recognition by England we can equally claim it of | the testimony of Mr. Reverdy Johnson, | general national losses, such as those for the France, And who has suggested such aclaimas | the American Minister, corroborated on ex- DECLINE OF THE COMMERCIAL MARINE that’ But the final and conclusive answer to these | amination by the extracts cited by Mr. Fish, | Of the United States and the prolongation of the war. Mr. Fish, with reference to the remark in his despatch of the 27th of February, that the indirect claims are covered by one of the alternatives of the treaty, states that the government of the United States are of the opinion that they are covered by the alternative power given to the Tribunal of Arbi- tration of awarding a sum in gross, in case it finds that Great Britain has failed to fulfil any duty, or licists discussed the national claims on account of | Of remitting to a board of assessors the determina- the prolongation of the war under the head of | tlon of the validity of claims presented to them and “Reclamations having qu'un rapport indirect et | the amounts to be paid. The sixth article of the nullment un rapport direct, avec les dépréda.- | treaty, after stating the three rules, proceeds:. tions réellement commises par les croiseurs.” Her Britannic Majesty has commanded her High | objections is this:— First—That at no time during the war, whether whilst the Alabama and her sister ships were en- | gaged in giving our marine to the flames, or since, | ho branch of the government proposed to hold Her | Majesty's government responsibie, except to the value of the property destroyed, and that which would have resuited from the completion of the voyages in which they were engaged. The govern- ment never exacted anything on its own account; | it acted only as the guardian and protector of its own citizens, and therefore only required that this governinent should pay their losses, or agree to that for the first seven years of the discussion, up to 1869, none put direct claims were “known as Alabama claims,” and that in the only authorita- tive document in which national direct injuries were mentioned up to the time of the recent nego- tiation they were not described as “Alabama claims," or as claims of any description. Mr, Fish states that continental jurists and pub- submit the question or its liability to friendly ar- | The quotation appears to be taken from | Commissioners and Plenipotentiaries to declare bitrament; to demand more now, and par- | a pamphlet by Doctor Blurtschii, entitled | that Her Majesty's government cannot assent to ticularly to make a demand to which no limit | “Opinion Impartiale sur la Question de 1’Ala- | the foregoing rules as a@ statement of principles of would be an entire de- | bama, et sur ia Maniere de la Résoudre.”” In this | 1nternational law which were in force at the time | can well be assigned, | arture from our previous course, and would, | pamphlet Dr. Blurtschil reviews the various points | When the claims mentioned in article 1, arose, but | 1 am sure, not be listened to by this govern- | mentioned by Mr. Sumner, in his speech | that Her Majesty's government agrees those claims | ment or countenanced by other nations, We have | in. the Senate, on the iSth of February, | the arbitrators should assume, &c. | obtained by the convention in question all that we | 1869, including the recognition of the be!- Article 7 provides :— : have ever asked. And with perfect opporvunity of | ligerency. In the sixth section he discusses ‘The said tribunal shall first determine as to each knowing what the sentiment of this government people is, I em aatisfed that nothing more the effects attributed by Mr. Sumner to tne acts of the Alabama and other vessels, and states that all the effects are attributable, in the first lace, to the cruisers themselves and not to the vitish government:—“Sa faute ne consiste pas a avoir ¢quipé et appareilié les corsaires, mais a niavoir pas empéché leur armement et leur sortie de son territoire neutre; mais cette faute wa quun rapport indir et nulement, un rapport vessel separately whether Great Britain has by any act or omission failed to fulfil any of the duties set forth in the three foregoing rule: or recognize by the principles of international law not inconsistent with such rules, and shall certify such fact as to each of the said vessels. In | case the tribunal find that Great Britain has fatled to fulfil any duty or duties as aforesaid it may, if it think proper, proceed to award a sum in gross to | EVERY DOLLAR TO BE RECOVERED. And Tam equally satistied that if the Convention | goes into operation every dollar due on what are known as the Alabama claims will be recovered. If ) ion was mistaken in the view thus decid- | pressed, it might be expected that some | | notice would have been taken of so important an | direct avec les déprédations, — réelemement | be paid by Great Britain for all the claims referred error; but Mr. Seward's reply of March 13, 1869, | commis¢s par les croisew's.” Dr. Blurtschit’s | to it. All the claims must mean all the claims men- | gives no intimation of any dissent whatever. He | remark did not, therefore, relate to clatma | Woned in al le one. y “Your despateh No. 112, of the 17th ultimo, | for indirect losses, nor does the word ‘Reclama- MR. FISH ADMITS that the indirect losses are not covered by what he terms the other ‘alternative’ of the treaty, viz., the proviso in article 10, that — Tn case the Tribunal finds that Great Britain has ; failed to fulfil any duty or duties as aforesaid, and tions” occur in the sentence in the paragraph, or in the whole section from which the quotation is taken. All that he says is that the default on the art of Great Britain by which the cruisers escaped as but Indirect and in no way a direct connec: ive to the protocol and Convention recently | sisi by you on behalf of this government has | | this day been reecived and submitted to the Presi- | dent. He directs me to say, in reply, that it is re- | eas an able and elaborate paper, and would 1h en communicated to the Senate had it not | tion with the depredations actually conmit- | does pot award “a sum in gross, the | reached here at the close of the present session | ted by them. The italics are Dr. Blurtschii's, | high ‘contracting parties agree that # and that of his administration. Thus, according to Mr. Fish gives as @ reason for no claims for | board — of assessors shall be appointed | } an uncontradicted statement in an official des- | nationa! losses having been defined or formulated | to ascertain and determine what claims are valid, | | pateh from the United States Minister in London that Lord Russell objected, in July, 1863, to any | and what amount or amounts shall be paid by. | to the government at Washington, oMcially pub- | claims being put forward, as Mr, Adams | Great britain to the United States on account of lished by the United States government, that gov- | continued to present claims = fr the | the liability arising from such iaiiure, as to each ernment had never exacted anything on its own | destruction of property by the Alabama in | Vessel according to the extent of such liability as | account, and the claims known as the Alabama | August, September and October of that | decided by the arbitrators. Mr. W. Beach Lawrence, the distinguished Ameri- can publicist, in a letter, dated the 20th uit., and published in the Springfield dependent, ob- chums in the sub; 1se9, adding been limited, during the whole war and year, and numbers of similar direct claims have nent negotiations, up to February, since been presented. Her Majesty's government are unable to see the force of this argument. nature, there would be the further embarrassment. of apportioning the amount of injury growing out | of the acts of each vessel in the general account, | Is it possible that the assessors are to decide what | part of | DEPREDATIONS OF THE REBEL VESSELS | Whatever may have been the reason the | serves:— | to the claims for the value of the property de- | fact remains that up to the time of | | “As in cach case determined against Great | stroyed, and that which would have re- | the arrival of the British High Com. | Britain the Board of Assessors, are, by article 10, to | sulted ‘from the completion of the voyages | missioners at Washington the term Alabama | ascertain and determine the amount which shail be | in v hh the captured vessels were engaged, | claims had a recognized and well known meaning | ‘eat Britain to the United States on ac- | Mr. nson contitmed the statement in’ his | as direct claims, and that no other claims had been | count of th “A arising from such failure as to | | despaich in aletter to Mr. J. A, Parker, published | presented to the British Government. nor indeed, | each vesse ‘cording to the extent of such liabili- | in New. York Journal of Commerce November | were these other claims even then presented. The | ty as decided hy the Arbitrators, there | “My instructions, as did those of Mr, | American High Commissioners, as appears by the | would seem to be no room for | Adams, looked exclusively to the adjustment of in- | 6th protocol, stated that the history of the Alabama | tndirect damages, Besides the diMculty | dividual claims, and no alleged commission or | and other cruisers showed extensive direct losses | Of deciding on a claim indeterminable in its | | omission of the British government ot duty to the United States pending the war was given in auy part of the correspondence between the two rnments as having any iafuence upon other than individual claims,’? It is not easy to understand how a class of claims | and indirect injury, and that Great Britain had be- come justly liable for the acts of those cruisers and their tenders; that the claims for the loss ‘i de- struction of private property which had thus far been presented amounted to about fourteen million dollars, and that in the nope of an amicable settie- which had been known under one appellation for | ment no estimate was made of the indirect losses seven years could have suddeniy acquired a jar | without prejudice, however, to the rigit to iIndem- wider aud more onerens significance. | nification on their account in the event of no suci sh reltes on Mr, Reverdy Jonson's pro- | settlement being made. imondment of the CiarendonJohnson © The indirect losses were thus mentioned not as ublic or national claims having | claims, but as grievances, and were menttoned lore the Senate when that con- | only to be witharawn from discus: advisement, by which it is to be | INDIRECT AND Mr. Samner’s speech, the | Mr. Fish says that it is igs which was published | B h High Commissioners did n n8é THE PROLONGATION OF THE WAR is to be assigned to each vessel? -I am aware that there is @ provision unat the arbitrators may, aiter they have decided as to each vessel, separately award # stim in gross for all the claims referred to them. Icannot, however, perceive how that pro- vision in any wise extends the scope of the power of the tribunal. Her Majesty's government cannot perceive it cither, By both articles seven and ten the arbi- travors ave to determine the extent of liability of ROT. Hi unfortunate that the + o part of the pre | in the President's n sage of Decemt and | ag: the presentation of these c | Great Britain as to each ve lt. ¢., a8 to each | in his des; tley of the 25th Septem. | the first tothe last took no exception cruiser arately, Throughout the claims | ber, 186: proposal, however, | corded no objection to the presentation made by | are i connected with the acts of | Was not to include national clap wuier the | the American Comunissioners of the claims gener- cruisers, Mr. Fish acknowledges | | ama claims,’ but to superadd them by | ally Known as the “Alabama claims,” which stand on | if the claims — are — considered — in | | inserting certain words after the words “agree | the protocol as a gen closs of claims, compre. the jadirect losses cannot he token | | that," in nding several species, und among them enumer- int, and as yet, he states, they | THE FIRST ARTICLE OF THF CONVE | ating specifically the Claims for indirect losses and | esented at Geneva not as claims for Had his proposal been adopted the art Injuries. Which a specific demand was made, but as losses | stood thus :— he high contr on the p jh | ‘The answer to this is that no mention ts made in | the protocolot claims generally knowu as the Ala- bama claims,” or of any specific ennmeration of them, or of any such presentation at ail, Ali that , ovcurved was the above-mentioned staternent that the history of the Alabama and other cruiser: showed indirect mjnries, followed by the waiver ot the Indemnification on thelr accouut in the hope of an amicable settlement. THE URITISH HIGH COMMISSIONERS thereupon took the natural course of not entering | Upon ® lengthened controversy upon the ba question of injuries for which’ they believed no and injurtes consequent upon the ucts complained of, and necessarily to be taken into equitable cou- | sidcration on a final settlement, and an ADJUDICATION OF ALL THE DIFFERENCES snbtmitted to the tribunal, L have already pointed out that “Chuuis” and not “Differences” have been sub- mitted, and Mr. Fish’s contention would amount to this, that in awarding damages jor a specific want of due diltence in regard to a particalar vessel, the arbitrators should take into consideration a variety of grievances, not necessarily connected with that ad which could not be made matters for a ) claim if examined in detail, aud award a gross sum sagree that all claims echment upon tie and all claims oj Ates upon He 1 the goverument of the United | Majesty's government, and all claims on the part subjects of Her Britannic Majest’ pon the gov rent OF the United States, aud all claims on the art of citizens of the United States up © “ove | ernment of Her Britanuie Majesty, including the so-called ‘Alabama claims,’ € vr. Johnson Ny made this proposal, as Lord Clarendou } 1sde, To titreduee e for compensation on ac- | Clatm Was presented, and these indirect losses and | Not proportioned to the want of diligence count of the recognition by the British government | injuries were never, as you are aware, again | or to the injury thereby ovcasioned, but | | of the bell rights of the Confederates, whieh | bronghs t ard by the American High Commis: | swelled — by the amount of all the in- | t bul claims for | moners, nor did the r until they were re- | juries and’ losses of which the United States wiorisin ste. | vived in the by the Unitea States | may have complained in all the correspondence of | | whieh the history of the cruisers jorms part. ‘That | is to say, the arbitrators shonid give judgment in | ove matier and inflict a penaity for another matter, A PRINCIPLE SO CONTRARY | to the ordinary practice of jurisprudence could not have been prea the British High Commis- by Her Majesty’s government to have intended to be introduced unless the intention | | Was explained to them ; but from first to last no men | | ton of ludirect losses was made in connection with | | the payment of a gross sum, If the American High | Commissioners destred that the alternative of the | , agent at Geneva on the 16th of December, if the Confederates | Mr, Fish could not have been ignorant from the | illeyally enforecd already ref , Which he yhuson, aud from the dis- s, of the feeling in England aggerated pp and when yoma claims similar ¢ ‘actor, it is much to be ‘colleagues did not expl able settlement . eitiement, and that rican not bell, Against them | iv, Johnson's beltef was that the Convention was table, because it did not include na of the recognition iasions In the pub! regard to ti . Sammer's sp to introduce as A | equally onerous ct rights “Mab shed from t t, the ith of Febru- ression. The | belief was | tion on which he founded thi i$ he reported to Mr, Fish on the 9th of did not acquiesce | award of a gross stun should cover the claims for from a private source, and his sugges | ug forward the constructive | indirect losses, why Were they not more explicit ? | in the same despatch, that instructions normous indemnity might be | and why did they not require some provision | stiould be given to him endeavor to supply the | held due. Inst American High Com- | to be made in the treaty to explain this for the guidance of the arbitrators? Mr. Fish says that | the claims for indirect losses were presented to the British Commissioners as solemnly and with more definiteness of specification than were preseated | by them to the American Commissioners the claims for alleged injuries which the people of Canada were said to have suffered from what was known ag PENIAN RAIDS, | omission, Was not favorably entertained by the United States government, Who telegraphed in re- ply that “as the treaty was then before the Senate missioners made @ statement, which Was accept by the British High Cormmissioness, and read by fle jajesty’s wovernm far as they are by the pres sof both countries, in ich, It is How stated, the American High Commissioners ever intended it to bear, but which, until the interpretation appeared in the American case, seemull (he only sense in whieh it could be read. | Her Majesty's government cannot accept the view which Mr, Fish appears to entertain that @ hegotiation must necessarily be a matter of bar- Th | Majesty's go of making any DEMANDS stated, whieh Her dof the propriety NATIONAL LOSSES having been det or considered by the Senate was by the publication of Air. Sumuner's speech, i which he urged that sngland was liable ior national | | injuries of the most extensive character; but AN | but the indirect losses were never presented as | “claims,” and & even now said not to be pre- | | sented as claims for which a specific demand ts made, while the Fenian raid claims were proposed | these injuries were rhetorically deduced chietty | gain, im Which # concession on one side is to be set | for consideration on the 4th of arch, | from the proclamation of neutiality and the sup- | offin each instance against a concession on the | again brow nt before the High Commission | plies fornished through the blockade. ‘The effect | other. The waiver of the constructive claims was, | on the 26th of April, when the — Sritish | | of Mr, Summer's speech in Engiand was reported by | asf stated to General Schenck, a requisite preltmi- | negotiators said that they were instructed to present these claims, and it was not until the | sd of May that they said that they would not urge | further that the settlement of these claims shoud be included in the present treaty, and that they bad. the less didiculty in doing 89 a8 a portion of nary to the negotiation, because Her Majesty's overnment could not, as the government of the hited States must have been aware then, and must have since become convinced, have assente to any woude of setticment which comprised these ' | there Js not the remotest chance that the demanas | contained in t England. ‘dhe speech will ever be recognized by versal sentiment will be found | jesty’s government should rest. Pas: | possibie significance, SHE. : the claims were of a constractive and inferential character. MEANING OF THE WITHDRAWAL OF CANADA'S CLAIM, ‘Thus, while the American indire only mentioned once, and then, as it were, inci- dentally, the Fenian raid claims were repeatedly and Sematy qeecnied, and when their withdrawal from tl negotiation was to at its close it was with a remark . just bearing, had it not been believed that all con- ‘structive and consequential claims had been with- drawn and excluded on the American side also, Mr, Fish expresses doubts as to the points raised in letter of Wi mC! tent of their own jurisdiction, and that no words similar to these confe that power are to be found in the articles to the Ge eva arbi- tration. It will be seen on comparing the Treat, of Wasi ton with the Claims iy ning: Convention be- tween Great Britain and the United States, of that the words which enth article of the for- mer are identical with the words used in the third which the Claims Commissioners were empowered to give, 6 10 ie the 8th of February, 1 1 had quoted from the four' article of the latter, under did undoubtedly give, decisions as extent of their, jurisdiction, in the claims for irovas bonds of. bonds of Heneage W. (See Senate Executive Documents, No. 103, Thirt, fourth Con; First Session, pp. 63, peer consider the results of the pro- sion respectively, FINAL SETTLEMENTS for instance, a3 Articles 11 and 17 are also adopted from the Con- vention of 1853, article 5; and had it been desired to give the same powers of jurisdiction to the arbi- trators as to the Commissioners a clause similar to that in the fourteenth article would have been in- serted to express it. In the absence of such @ clause, the jurisdiction of the arbitrators remains restricted to the particular claims known as “Alabama claims,” submitted to them in article fever nate wade rina eta e is desi ven to The Claims Commissioners in one part of the treaty ia given in express words, can be inferentially assumed to ven in another pare of the treaty to the arbitrators by. assigning a road signification to the term ‘question’ in the second article, The questions which the arbitra- tors are to examine and decide are obviously all questions: that may be laid before them by the respective a pees in preferring and refuting tne particular claims on which their Lp halt is requested, and the article must be read in connection with the succeeding articles, three, four and five, providing how the cases, counter cases, evidence and arguments are to be brought before them. Mr. Fish cannot mean that the ARBITRATORS MAY DECIDE “ANY QUESTIONS” not coming within the terms of the reference to the tribunal. If that were to be the case Her Majesty’s government might bring forward as a set-off against the Alabama Claims the questions of the injury done to British trade by the blockade, or the Fenian raids, or possibly other questions; in short, a Loa would be given to the arbitration which the United States government could not have coritemplated, and would probably be unwill- ing to admit. Mr. Fish states that “the United States calmly submitted to the Commission the de- cision of its jurisdiction” over the Cotton Loan claim, but this statement does not appear to be at all borne out by the argument for the United States, On motion to disr:iss these claims the United States agent moved for THE DISMISSAL OF THE CLAIM as not being included under the treaty, and plainly notified that the United States refused to permit it to be considered as included, his argument being that there was a constitutional provision which prevented the payment of such claims; that this was known to the American Commissioners when negotiating the treaty, to the American govern- ment when accepting, and to the Senate when rati- fying it, and that it. was impossible for the United States to pay or to consider the q tion of paying the claims. “It must be born mind,” he said, “that at the time of this c spondence, as well as at the time of the conclusion and ratification of the treaty, the constitution of tne United States contained an express prohi- bition of the assumption of payment of these debts by the United States or by any State. That every officer of the United States, executive, legislative and judicial, was thus bound by the supreme law of the land, and by his oath of office, to treat as utterly null any provision of any treaty or statute in contravention of that constitutional prohibition, under penalty of im- peachment or its equivalent.” The agent con- cluded by saying:—‘The dismission of the claim on the ground specified in ‘his motion.” In short, he positively declared that NO AWARD UNFAVORABLE TO THE UNITED STATES would or could have been accepted and paid. There are several other statements made by Mr. Fish which are open to reply; but I have con- sidered it suMeient for the purposes of this de- spatch to confine my comments to those which bear more immediately on the negotiation and in- terpretation of the treaty. Iam, &c., GRANVILLE. No. 57. MR. FISH TO GENRRAL SCHENCK. DEPARTMENT OF STAT’ Wasuinaton, June 3, 1 Srr—Your despatch, No. 233, of the 18th w! inclosing copy of supplement to the London éazette of the day previous, has been received. This copy of the Gazette brings to the department the first notice it has had of farl Granville’s note of the 13th’ ultimo, which prob- appeared in print, submitted to the ably appe: British public long betore it reachea Sir Edward | Thornton, to whom it purports to be addressed. The avowed purpose of Earl Granville’s note is to notify Sir Edward Thornton that Her Majesty's government have refrained from continu- ing “an argument and a live discussion with the government of the United States upon the scope in the Treaty of Washington relating to the arbi- tration on the Alanama claims,”’ and to put him in possession of the views of that government with reference to some passages which occur in my note to you of the 16th of April, Of cours will not be assumed that the of its ablication in Great Bri advance of its possible receipt by the for whose instruction it was written, h yc nection with the influencing of public opini Europe or near the expectea scene of the Genev: Tribunal, It never was the desire of this gover ment to open, much less to proiong sf Her Majesty's government upon the sco} tention of the articles in the Treaty of Washington ating to the arbitration on the Alabama claim ‘he government ot the United States hoped, as it had reason to believe, that before the august tri bunal appointed in accordance with the terms of the Treaty of Washington to examine and decide upon the matters in dispute between the United States and — Great Britain, and designated as “the Alabama Claims,’ the treaty would be its own interpreter. Resting upon this most reasonable conviction it has been the earnest wish of the President—a wish often ex- pressed in the correspondence of this department on the subject—to remit all discussion as to the scope and meaning of the treaty to that tribunal. Had this feeling been reciprocated by Her Majest) government the discussion which has occurred he- tween the two governments upon the true meaning of the treaty might have been in a great me re avoided. Upon the present point of contention tween this government and that of Great Brita namely, whether the claims for national losses, popularly denominated “indirect damages,” ate by the terms of the treaty fairly within the for the consideration and decision of the Tribu the United States, it is believed, wil y the fullest discussion of the question, imy note to yon of the 16th of April 1 occasion to say:—‘It is diMcult to reconcile laborate line of argument put forward by Karl Granville to show a waiver of claims for indirect losses, with the idea that at the outset of the nego- trations Her Majesty’s government did not consider the matter of public or national injuries as the nothing In basis of an outstanding cliim against Great Britain Nis per ashin's do on the part of the United States.” instructions of the 13th unit., now before m not serve to lessen, muvh less to remove, the « culty thus snggested. In this instru Granville, With great skill and ingenuity, recapitu- jates the previous arguments on the question, arranges with infinite care the facts wpon which he desires that the propositions advanced by Her Ma- tain tone of criticism which may with proprir be ascribed to the pressure of = pub business upon His Lordship at the present momen 1 proceed to notice some statements tn [iis Lord- ship's note, from which he draws inferences, tn my ct losses were ich could haye no the 20th of March, that the aims Commissioners have and the arbitrators have not power to decide upon the ¢x- 5 64.) The ar- rey ot the tribunal, and of the claims commis- and intention of the articles | | | | | opinion, whotly unwarranted by the premises. 1 | do this that you may be put in possession not only of all new facts on the subject, put also of the views of this government, in order that you may be able to make seh use of them in your future ii tercourse on this subject with Her Majesty's gov- ernment as the occasion may demand, of the allusion in my instruction of the 16th April to Lord ar Granville says :— . Fish ounits the words, ‘of which the Conteder ate loan is an additional proof,’ which, taken ¥ the context, show that Mr. Adams was then sp ing, not of the case of assistance in money and sidered Was improperly rendered ¢ States by blockade running and the cotton loan. It is true that those words were omitte Was no reason why they should have been cons noted. ‘They refer to some other and additional ae of | tng out bring on a war witha view fo oid the My object was not to fortily d said, but to show that he tad in that her conduct was aiding With or without the omitted tablishes the notice, The cumu- h they afford of the conspiracy that Mr Adwims notified to Lord Russell is unim- portant to the notice given. The suggestion of the omission svems to be an ingenious avoidance of a material issue in the case by raising another of no But Mm this convection itis dimcult to imagine by What powers of divina- tion Lord Granville assumes = that Mr. Adams was speaking with reference to block- ade running, which is not even alluded to in Lord Russeil’s note, and seems to be an interpola. tion wholly unsustamed by the narrative of Lord Russell, whose general amiability of character and friendship for the United States have never yet subjected him to the suspicion of withholding any- thing that might be used to their disad- vantage or discredit. A perusal of Lord Rus- sell's note, which 1s Pogsnced hereto, copied from the British Biue ok, North America, the conspiracy which Mr. Adams was poin' as tending what Mr. A notitied to the Contec words, the ¢ lative evidence W | of May 15, 1869, aking of blockade rise of 4 as I think, that Lord Hassell’ note eatad Alabama and other cruisers were the subject of the conversation, there was no occa- sion on my part to adduce the Confederate loan as additional proof, The fact that itis ment additional proof shows that it was not proof of which«Mr. Adams had been 8] PLAIN DIPLOMATIC TALK. Lord Granville has unhappily misconcetved the- subject which formed the peacing topic of the inter- view between Mr. Adams and Lord Russell. The depredations of the cruisers afloat, the continued: bul ging of ships for the Confederates in British ports, the manning those ships with British sailors, and the uncon desire on the part of the con- spirators for the success of the Coniederates and for & monopoly of the trade of the Southern States— this, in the estimation of Mr. Adams, ras the evidence of the existence of the con- spivece of which the Confederate loan was in- ntally referred to as additional proof. Earl Math of February, 1860, and that of 80 May, 180%, ruary, at ol 1867, both from Mr. Seward to Mr. Ad: were neither of them communicated to Her Majesty’s govern- ment. If His Lordship means that notes were not officially communicated to his government at the time of their date he is unquestionably right; but then he controverts what was not alleged. I had said the official correspond- ence of this government was published and is within the knowledge of Her Majesty’s gov- ernment. This Lord Granville does not deny, ferro ta pnd pce theo e ion of ish Joint Com: ion, and was agai formally de- as main again livered to the nt of Her Maiesty at Geneva in December last, “Lord Granville himeelt more tlian once quotes from it, thus establishing what I Sot what esa at wate OWI e of Her Mal id fa ernment. Lord Granville refers to a a nt to Mr. Seward, dated 17th February, 1869, in wh: Mr. Reve Johnson reviews "the sabe made in the United States to the convention n¢ tlated by him. His Lordshi tract from this despatch, referring to page 767 as that on which it appears, The two despatches which he had intimated had not been communicated to- Her Majesty's government appear in the same volume, from which he thus quotes, the one makes a long ex- at page 628, the other at page 673, At the conclusion of this extract Ais Lord- ship proceeds:—If Mr. Johnson was mis- taken in the view thus decidedly expressed, it might be expected that notice would have been taken of so important an error when it is remem- bered that the convention of which Mr. Johnson was then speaking and in the negotiation of which he had acted so prominent a part was rejected by the Senate of the United States, a branch of the treaty making ower of this government. It can scarcely e said, even with plausibility, that Mr. Johnson's expression of his own views in the despatch from which Earl Granville quotes so liberally ‘was allowed to pass unnoticed by this government. DISAPPROVAL OF THE JOHNSON TREATY. The vote. of the Senate is understood to have shown only one member who,. from whatever cause, approved Mr, Reverdy Johnson’s treaty. The inference may be fairly drawn that no other Senator shared Mr, Johnson’s views. The opinion obtained somewhat extensively, in this country at least, that the Senate of the United States did take a somewhat decided notice of the treaty, and that, in rejecting the treaty itself, as the Senate did, it swept away all the reasoning in argument in its defence, which _ thenceforth = needed no farther notice. But, however this may be, the d itch of Ear! Granville establishes the fact that at ita date the claims which Her Majesty’s government em- ploys Mr. Johnson's despatch to contro- vert had been advanced, istorically, there- fore, they were then known. ie date of this despatch is more than two years before the meeting of the Joint High Commission. ‘The citation of this despatch by Her Majesty’s gov- ernment would seem to bring to it a knowledge of the existence of these claims anterior to the the Joint High Commission although we have elsewhere been told that their presentation to that Commission was a surprise. Soon after the reception of this despatch of Mr. Johnson’s by his government he ceased to be its representative at the Oeurt of St. James. Those who know Mr. Johnson’s social and nial qualities will not be surprised to find that Lord Granville, not content with citing his oficial despatch in explanation of the conversation, pro- ceeds to cite, in defence of the British side of the question, a professional letter of Mr. Johnson writ- ten several months after his retirement from public life, in an instruction from tnis Department to- Mr. Motley, Mr. Johnson's successor as the repre- sentative of this government, dated May 15, 1869, informing him of the then recent action of the Senate of the United States on what was familiarly known as the Johnson-Clarendon treaty. THE PRESIDENT'S VIEWS. The views of this government are thus expresset in relation to the claims of the United States against the British government. Upon one point the President and the Senate and the overwhelm- ing mass of the people are convinced—namely, that the Convention, from its character and terms, or from the time of its negotiation, or from the cir- cumstances attending its nenokese would not have removed the sense of existing grievance, would not have afforded real, substantial satisfaction to the people, would not have proved a hearty, cordial settlement of ponding, questions, but would have leit a feeling of dissatisfaction inconsistent with the relations which the President desires to have firmly established between tne two great nations of common origin, common langun commor literature, common interests and ovjects in the meeting of | advancement of the civilization of the age. The action of the United States Senate, as above shown, and the expression at quoted from my despatch to Mr, Motley, furnish a correct history of the attitude of the government of the United States in relation to the whole ubject, at a time contemporancous with the expression of Mr. Johnson, upon which Ear! Granvilie places so much reliance. The- support which Her Majesty’s government can de- sire from Mr. Johuson’s despatch seems lo me very slender. To show that the United States continued to maintain this position in relation to the claims it may not be out of place to call your attention to the language of my instruction to Mr. Moticy, of September 25, 1869, in which occurs the following expression of the views then entertained by this government—“The President 1s not vet prepared to pronounce on the question of indemaities which he thinks due by Great Britain to individual citizens of the United States for the their property by in the ports of now prepared to which he thinks dne b; destruction of fitted out Great Britain; nor Is he speak of the reparatior the British government for the larger account of the vast nation Injuries it has inflieted on the United States, Nor does he attempt now to measure the relative effect of the various causes of injury, as whether by untimely recognition of belligerency, by suffering the fitting out of rebel cruisers, or by the supply of ships, arms and munitions of war to the Confederates, or other- wise, in whatever matter. All these are subjects of futare sideration, Which, when the time for action shall «arrive, the President will Gy rebel cruisers &c.”” It seems strange that this language should have failed to make evident the existence of a serious: complaint on the part of this government on account of the natipnal jOsses and. injuries consequent upoh the 1 sed rates of insurance, the transier oft the m nt jaarine of the United States to Great Britain and the increased expenditure cansed by the prolongation of the war for the suppression of the rebellion, ‘That the idea of a claim on the part of the United States for indirect damages for national losses was even then neither new nor ob. scare in the ininds of emunent British statesmen, LT need but refer again to the opinions expresses Lord Cairns and Projessor Bernard, quoted note of the 16th of April, [see no reason to ¢ what Ithen found occasion to say at every sta therefore, of the proceedings. From N, mber, 1s witen Mr. Adams solicited redress fo injuries sustained, to the date of the treaty, government las kept before that of Great Britain her assertion of the liability of the latter for what are now termed the indirect injuries. Karl Gran- ville surely cannot dismiss the uniuterrapted and consistent assertion of the claims of the United States against Creat Britain for national losses suffered by the jormer in conseqm » Of a disre- ul oODMgations by the lat JAND'S ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE it remains to notice one other passage in the de spatch of hari Granville, Allading toiny reference jm the note of the ifth of April to the work of Professor Bernard, His Lordship says:—still leas ean thes, i . admit that, becateé iehap er of his wort gave certain extracts from Mr. under the head of Alabama clai became the standard by which as Alabama claims were to be nm again, His Laydship repels fi propo Mr. Bernard Was quoted to show that Her Mates | Wich e red upon the negotiation of t bama question with a knowledge of tue existence of the claims of the United states for imdirect There Was no suggestion that the despatch Mr. Bernard quoted was to be # standard of Measure, but*that the fact of quoting tt by Mr. Ber- hard showed knowledge on his part of the existence and nature o (claims which elsewhere were denied. His Lordship then proceeds :—“It bappens, more- over, that in the extracts given by Mr. Bernard im the chapter to which Mr. Fish refers the three pas- sages cited by Mr. Fish in his present despatch as: relating to indirect injuries and national losses are omitted.” I am vound to suppose that the re- ated apparent denial of what was not asserted. is the result or consequence of the haste in which His Lordahip’s note was given to the press. In my despatch to you T had not said that bn yoy ag cited by me were among the extracts given by Bernard in the chapter to which 1 referred. My Janguage was that in this) work he summarizes on instruction, &¢ I have, therefore, to repeat what