many ordinary wars," and to indicate, as part of that damage, the losses to whose presentation exception is now taken. Public men in both countries discussed them, while the public press on the one side and on the other advanced and combated them with an earnestness and warmth that brought them into a prominence beyond the direct losses and injuries sustained by individuals. A detailed statement of their claims, enumerating and setting forth the indirect losses precisely as they are advanced in the Case, was submitted by the American negotiators to the Joint High Commission in the first discussion of the claims, on the 8th day of March, and appears in the Protocol, approved on the 4th day of May. Her Majesty's Government, therefore, cannot, in the absence of any specific exclusion of these damages by the Treaty, be said to be taken unawares by their presentation to the Tribunal, and the President was not at liberty to regard as withdrawn or settled any of the claims enumerated in a statement prepared and approved by the Joint High Commission after their discussions were closed, and within four days of the signing of a treaty which declares that the differences which had arisen with respect to the "Alabama claims" still exist. Appearing thus, from whatever cause, not to have been eliminated from the enumerated claims of the United States, the President had not the power, of his own accord, to withhold them from the Case to be presented to the Tribunal of Arbitration; but in frankness and in sincerity of purpose to remove, in the spirit of the Treaty, all causes of difference between the two Governments, he has set them forth before the Geneva Tribunal, content to accept any award that the Tribunal may think fit to make on their account. It is within your personal knowledge that this Government has never expected or desired any unreasonable pecuniary compensation on their account, and has never entertained the visionary thought of such an extravagant measure of damages as finds expression in the excited language of the British press, and seems most unaccountably to have taken possession of the minds of some, even, 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 of citizens or subjects of either Power (other than Alabama claims) which arose out of acts committed during a specified period. In the correspondence which preceded the agreement for the meeting of the Joint High Commission which negotiated the Treaty, language was purposely agreed upon and used to express the idea which the representatives of the two Governments entertained, that no claim founded on contract, and especially, no claim on account of the rebel or confederate cotton debt, was to be presented. Similar language, and for the same avowed and admitted purpose, was used in the Treaty. Among other claims of an unexpected character presented by the agent of the British Government, there was one for a part of the confederate debt, which is understood to be held in Great Britain to the extent of many millions. Immediately on its presentation the United States remonstrated, and requested the British Government to instruct their agent to withdraw that claim. Their remonstrance was unheeded; their request was not answered. If any instruction was given, this Government was not informed thereof, and it failed to be observed; and the claim was pressed to argument. The United States demurred before the commission to its jurisdiction over claims of that description, and the decision of the commission disposed of the case adverse to the claimant. The attitude of the two Governments is now reversed, with the difference in favor of the United States, that there was no question raised as to the understanding of both Governments at the date of the Treaty, with reference to the exclusion of claims of the character then presented. The United States seek not to be the judge in their own case. The course which they pursued afforded a happy solution to what might have been a question of embarrassment. They desire to maintain the jurisdiction of the Tribunal of Arbitration over all the unsettled claims, in order that, being judicially decided, and the questions of law involved therein being adjudicated, all questions connected with or arising out of the Alabama claims, or "growing out of the acts" of the cruisers, may be forever removed from the possibility of disturbing the perfect harmony of relations between the two countries. The President regrets that there should be any difference of opinion between the two Governments on any question connected with the Treaty. He indulges, however, the earnest hope that the disposition which has been equally manifested by both Governments to remove all causes of difference between them will bring them to an agreement upon the incidental question which has arisen, and will allow no obstacle to deprive the world of the example of advanced civilization presented by two powerful States exhibiting the supremacy of law and of reason over passions, and deferring their own judgments to the calm interpretation of a disinterested and discriminating tribunal. I have to acknowledge your No. 139, of date of February 6, inclosing copy of Earl Granville's note to you of the 3d instant, and of your reply. Your answer to Earl Granville is marked with your usual intelligence and prudence, and meets the warm approval of the President. You will receive herewith a dispatch of the same date with this, giving the opinion of this Government on the question suddenly and abruptly raised by Her Majesty's Government, and presented by Earl Granville nakedly and without any argument. Although no reply is invited by the note of the British Government, the settlement of all causes of difference between the two countries, and the successful example of the mode of settling international differences established by the Treaty, are so earnestly desired by this Government, that we accept the friendly assurances of the British note, disregarding its bold and sudden announcement of an opinion which we think unsustained by the history of the negotiations between the two Governments, or by the events which gave rise to the claims, and for which we see no logical foundation in the Treaty itself. 28 A-II You will, therefore, read the dispatch referred to to Lord Granville, and may leave with him a copy in case he desires it. I am, sir, your obedient servant, HAMILTON FISH. No. 10. General Schenck to Mr. Fish. [Telegram.] LONDON, February 28, 1872. (Sent 5.40 p. m.) Granville desires me to send change of language of his proposal, as follows: After word "June," substitute "that the United States do not ask the Arbitrators to admit or take into their consideration these indirect claims, either as elements for the determination of any one sum in gross which they may award in case of decision against Great Britain on the point of liability for any of the vessels, or otherwise; and that in case of damages being referred to assessors, they will not bring forward these claims before the assessors." This variation of words does not seem to me to change meaning. No. 11. Mr. Fish to General Schenck. [Telegram.] SCHENCK. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Desire to meet the Cannot agree to Granville's proposal as made. British Government in any honorable adjustment of the incidental question which has arisen. Our answer is very friendly, and will, we hope, open the way for a settlement. Whatever the British Commis sioners may have intended, or thought among themselves, they did not eliminate the claims for indirect losses, they never asked us to withdraw them, nor did they allude to them directly, or in plain terms; and after the deliberations of the Joint Commission were closed, Tenterden and the British Commissioners allowed them to be formally enumerated in statement of 4th May without a word of dissent. On the day of the reception of your note of the 27th of February, and within a few hours after its arrival, I was enabled to have an inter view with Lord Granville at the Foreign Office, with a view to making him acquainted, agreeably to your instructions, with its contents. Your communication had been looked for by the Government here with great anxiety. Following in substance the language of your No. 145, I began by say ing that, although Her Majesty's Government had not invited any reply to their note, but had been content to make a naked announcement, unaccompanied by reasons or argument, 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, yet such was the earnest desire of my Government for a settlement of all differences between the two countries, and for the successful carrying out of a treaty which offered to the world so good an example of a peaceful and effective method for the removal of international difficulties, that the President was most ready to accept the assurances of the friendly feelings which had prompted that note; and that you had communicated to me in a dispatch, with some fullness, the opinion and views of the Government of the United States on the point which they had raised. I said also to Lord Granville that I was authorized to read to him the dispatch referred to, and, if he desired it, to leave with him a copy of it. He remarked to me that, being just then pressed and occupied as I mast know he was, if I were to read it he should not probably make it the subject of any comment at that time; and he said, if agreeable to me, therefore, and understanding that, anticipating his request for a copy, I had one already prepared, he would ask me to leave that with him that he might have it to lay before the Cabinet at an early meeting. 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 parted, however, I thought it proper to say to his Lordship that as Her Majesty's Government would undoubtedly take a little time, perhaps 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 exchange of unofficial suggestions touching some mode of issue from our present complication, I would always be happy to meet him and co-operate with him in such friendly endeavor. He assented at once cordially to the propriety of our keeping ourselves in such relation and free unofficial intercourse with each other; but he did not express himself as hopefully, as he thought I did, of an ultimate satisfactory adjustment. I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, ROBT. C. SCHENCK. No. 180.] No. 13. General Schenck to Mr. Fish. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, London, March 21, 1872. (Received April 1.) SIR: I have barely time to transmit, so as to catch at Queenstown the mail which has left Liverpool to-day, the reply of Lord Granville to your dispatch of the 27th February. It came to me at eleven o'clock last night, and the printed "Memorandum" which accompanies it as au inclosure, and which is to be taken as a part of the communication, reached me only this afternoon. I send also, herewith, a copy of my answer to his Lordship, acknowledging the receipt of his note and the "Memorandum." You will observe that Her Majesty's Government have construed your dispatch to me as containing apparently an invitation to open fully a discussion 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 nothing advanced, however, either in the way of any proposal for the removal of the difficulty between us, or intimating what may be the consequence in case of continued difference of opinion. It is still but the notice which was contained in Lord Granville's note of the 3d ultimo, accompanied now by the reasons which have led Her Majesty's Government to the conclusion which was then communicated. But I must close in haste, without further comment. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, [Inclosure 1 in No. 13.] ROBT. C. SCHENCK. Earl Granville to General Schenck. FOREIGN OFFICE, March 20, 1872. SIR: I have laid before my colleagues Mr. Fish's dispatch of the 27th ultimo, of which, at my request, and authorized by your Government, you gave me a copy on the 14th instant. Her Majesty's Government recognize with pleasure the assurances of the President that he sincerely desires to promote a firm and abiding friendship between the two nations; and, animated by the same spirit, they gladly avail themselves of the invitation which your Government appear to have given, that they should state the reasons which induced them to make the declaration contained in my note to you of the 3d ultimo, and which I then purposely omitted, in the hope of obtaining, without any controversial discussion, the assent of the Government of the United States. Mr. Fish says, "What are called the indirect losses and claims are not now put forward for the first time. For years they have been prominently and historically part of the 'Alabama claims.' It would be superfluous to quote, or perhaps even to refer to, particular passages in the published instructions of this Government to their Minister to Great Britain, in the notes of that Minister to Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, or in other public papers, to show that the expectation of this Government has, from the beginning of the acts which gave rise to the 'Alabama claims,' been that the British Government would indemnify the United States. Incidental or consequential damages were often mentioned as included in the accountability." This assertion does not appear to me accurately to represent the facts as they are shown in the correspondence between the two Governments. It is true that in some of the earlier letters of Mr. Adams vague suggestions were made as to possible liabilities of this country extending beyond the direct claims of American citizens for specific losses arising from the capture of their vessels by the Alabama, Florida, Shenandoah, and Georgia; but no claims were ever defined or formulated, and certainly none were ever described by the phrase "Alabama claims," except these direct claims of American citizens. No mention of any claim for national or indirect losses had been made during the negotiation, commencing with Mr. Seward's dispatch to Mr. Adams, dated the 27th of August, 1866, and ending with the signature of the Convention of the 10th of November, 1868, by Lord Stanley and Mr. Reverdy Johnson, by the IVth Article of which, power was given to Commissioners "to adjudicate upon the class of claims referred to in the official correspondence between the two Governments as the 'Alabama claims.'” The first subsequent mention of any claim for national losses was in a communication, unauthorized by his Government, made by Mr. Reverdy Johnson, in March, 1869, to Lord Clarendon, in which he suggested that the terms of the Convention signed by him with Lord Clarendon, on the 14th of January, which comprised a reference to a Mixed Commission of the "Alabama claims," should be enlarged so as to include all claims on the part of either Government upon the other, an essential condition of the |