Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING THE GENEVA ARBI

TRATION.

No. 1.

General Schenck to Mr. Fish.

[Telegram.]

LONDON, February 2, 1872.

London journals all demand that United States shall withdraw claims for indirect damages, as not within intention of Treaty. Ministry alarmed. Am exerting myself with hope to prevent anything rash or offensive being done or said by this Government. Evarts here cooperating.

No. 2.

Mr. Fish to General Schenck.

[Telegram.]

SCHENCK.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, February 3, 1872.

There must be no withdrawal of any part of the claim presented. Counsel will argue the case as prepared, unless they show to this Government reasons for a change.

The alarm you speak of does not reach us. We are perfectly calm and content to await the award, and do not anticipate repudiation of the Treaty by the other side.

No. 3.

FISH.

General Schenck to Mr. Fish.

[Telegram.]

LONDON, February 5, 1872. (Sent at 8.30 p. m.)

Reserving comment and further information until I can send written dispatch, I communicate Granville's note giving notice of British interpretation of Treaty, as follows:

Earl Granville to General Schenck.

FOREIGN OFFICE, February 3, 1872.

SIR Her Majesty's Government have had under their consideration the Case presented on behalf of the Government of the United States to the Tribunal of Arbitra tion at Geneva, of which a copy had been presented to Her Majesty's Agent.

I will not allude in this letter to several portions of the United States Case which are of comparatively smaller importance, but Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that it will be in accordance with their desire that no obstacle should be interposed to the prosecution of the Arbitration, and that it will be more frank and friendly toward the Government of the United States to state at once their views respecting certain claims of an enormous and indefinite amount which appear to have been put forward as matters to be referred to arbitration.

Her Majesty's Government hold that it is not within the province of the Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva to decide upon the claims for indirect losses and injuries put forward in the case of the United States, including the loss in the transfer of the American commercial marine to the British flag, the enhanced payment of insurance, and the prolongation of the war, and the addition of a large sum to the cost of the war and suppression of the rebellion.

I have stated above the importance which Her Majesty's Government attach to the prosecution of this arbitration.

The primary object of the Governments was the firm establishment of amicable relations between two countries which have so many and such peculiar reasons to be on friendly terms, and the satisfaction with which the announcement of the Treaty was received by both nations showed the strength of that feeling.

But there is another object to which Her Majesty's Government believe the Government of the United States attach the same value as they do themselves, namely, to give an example to the world how two great nations can settle matters in dispute by referring them to an impartial tribunal.

Her Majesty's Government, on their part, feel confident that the Government of the United States are also equally anxious with themselves that the amicable settlement which was stated in the Treaty of Washington to have been the object of that instrument may be attained, and that an example so full of good promise for the future may not be lost to the civilized world.

SCHENCK.

No. 4.

General Schenck to Earl Granville.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,

London, February 5, 1872.

MY LORD: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt, on the evening of the 3d instant, of your note of that date, in which, after stating that Her Majesty's Government have had under their consideration the Case presented on behalf of the United States to the Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva, you proceed to say that you will not allude to several portions of that Case which are of comparatively smaller importance, but that Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that it will be in accordance with their desire that no obstacle should be interposed to the prosecution of the arbitration, and that it will be more frank and friendly toward the Government of the United States to state at once their views respecting certain claims, which you describe as of an enormous and indefinite amount, which appear to have been put forward as matters to be referred to arbitration.

You then go on to state that Her Majesty's Government hold that it is not within the province of the Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva to decide upon the claims for indirect losses and injuries put forward in the Case of the United States, including the loss in the transfer of the American commercial marine to the British flag, the enhanced payment of insurance, and the prolongation of the war, and the addition of a large sum to the cost of the war and suppression of the rebellion.

Referring, then, to the importance which Her Majesty's Government attach to the prosecution of the arbitration, you proceed to speak of the objects which Her Majesty's Government had in view in that arbi

tration. The primary object, you say, was the firm establishment of amicable relations between two countries which have so many and such peculiar reasons to be on friendly terms; and you add that the satisfaction with which the announcement of the Treaty was received by both nations showed the strength of that feeling.

But you say there is another object to which Her Majesty's Government believe the Government of the United States attach the same value as they do themselves, namely, to give an example to the world how two great nations can settle matters in dispute by referring them to an impartial tribunal.

And you close your note with the statement that Her Majesty's Government on their part feel confident that the Government of the United States are also equally anxious with themselves that the amicable settlement, which was stated in the Treaty of Washington to have been the object of that instrument, may be attained, and that an example so full of good promise for the future may not be lost to the civilized world.

The purpose of Your Lordship's writing appearing to be to notify me of the opinions which Her Majesty's Government hold as to the power of the Tribunal of Arbitration to decide upon certain claims for indirect losses and injuries put forward in the Case of the United States, I shall hasten to communicate your note with this information to my Government.

In the mean time, I venture to assure Your Lordship that the Government of the United States will be gratified by this renewed assurance of the desire of Her Majesty's Government that no obstacle should be interposed to the prosecution of the arbitration, and by the frank and friendly terms in which this statement of their views is made to me. The objects which the Government of the United States proposed to itself in the Treaty, and the arbitration for which it provides being identical with those stated by Your Lordship-that is, the firm establishment of amicable relations between the two countries and the giving to the world an example showing how two great nations can settle matters in dispute by referring them to an impartial tribunal-I can further assure Your Lordship that my Government does reciprocate most fully and earnestly the anxiety that the speedy settlement by arbitration, which was provided for by the Treaty of Washington, may be attained, so that, as Your Lordship has eloquently expressed it, an example so full of good promise for the future may not be lost to the civilized world. I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, My Lord, Your Lordship's most obedient, humble servant,

ROBT. C. SCHENCK.

No. 5.

General Schenck to Mr. Fish.

[Extract.]

No. 148.]

SIR:

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,

London, February 10, 1872. (Received February 23.)

[blocks in formation]

One of these debates, they say, was, in part at least, in the hearing of the United States Minister, who was present in the House of Lords, and was doubtless communicated to his Government; and all the debates on

that occasion must have been carried to the knowledge of the Government of the United States by the printed and published reports, and yet no protest or other communication objecting to such interpretation was made by the United States to this Government. It is held, therefore, that there was on one part an implied acquiescence in that meaning given to the instrument. Now, I had supposed that the treaty having been concluded and published, and its provisions and language carrying with them their own meaning, to be interpreted with or without resort to the light supplied by the protocol and the history of the negotiation, we were hardly obliged to go further and watch for what might be said on the subject, pro or con, in a legislative body engaged in discussion on it. Indeed, it appears to me that remonstrances or criticisms directed from our Government at the speeches made in Parliament might possibly have been regarded as an impertinence. In this instance we were certainly not called upon to take either the side of Lord Cairns or of Lord Granville in the difference between them.

It seems to be admitted even here that such notice of what was said would have been uncalled for, except for the circumstance that the Lords and Members of Parliament who argued for the same British interpretation now put forward were the principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and two of the negotiators of the Treaty.

It would keep the diplomatic agents of the United States in London and of Great Britain in Washington rather busily occupied during the sessions of Congress and of Parliament if they were required to note and report, for comment or answer by their respective Governments, whatever might be said in those assemblies, at the risk otherwise of being bound and concluded by all the declarations made by legislators.

In point of fact, so far as I am personally concerned, although of the least possible consequence, I can state that I was only present at, and heard, the speech of Lord Russell in the House of Lords, and the first speech of Lord Granville in reply. Our interest on both sides, as you. will see from my dispatches of that date, was at that time concentrated on the question of interpretation and defense of the second rule in the sixth article.

But if from silence is to be argued consent, mark how infinitely stronger a case ou this principle we had against Great Britain, but which she never would admit the force of, on another branch of the negotiation of the Treaty of Washington. Near two years and a half after the treaty of 1846, Mr. Bancroft, then our Minister here, sent to Lord Palmerston, then British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, a copy of the United States surveys of the waters of Puget Sound and those dividing Vancouver's Island from our territory, accompanied by a note in which he said, "Your Lordship will readily trace the whole course of the channel of Haro, through the middle of which our boundary-line passes." Lord Palmerston wrote to Mr. Bancroft in reply, thanking him for the surveys, but not taking the slightest exception to the statement as to the position of the boundary-line which they have since so fiercely contested, and which we have had to submit to arbitration.

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

ROB'T C. SCHENCK.

« AnteriorContinuar »