Geneva arbitration - United States. Department of State - Google Libros

Iniciar sesión

Libros

Imágenes de página

[blocks in formation]

Communicates Earl Granville's note of 3d,

giving British interpretation of Treaty,

"Her Majesty's Government hold that it

is not within the province of the Tri-

bunal of Arbitration to decide upon

claims for indirect losses and injuries.". 425

Reply to Earl Granville's note of 3d. United

States will be gratified with assurance

that Great Britain does not desire to in-

terpose obstacles to prosecution of Arbi-

tration. Object of the United States is

identical with that of Great Britain to

establish amicable relations between the

two countries, and to set an example how

two great nations can settle disputes by

reference to Arbitration. Will inform his

Government as to British opinion regard-

ing indirect claims.....

Comments on the argument as used in Par-

liament to sustain the position taken by

Her Majesty's Government in relation to

their interpretation of the Treaty...... 427

Interview with Earl Granville, who states

that Sir Edward Thornton had informed

him that Cabinet at Washington had re-

jected Mr. Fish's draught of reply to his

note, and had taken further time for con-

sideration. Earl Granville was prepared

to recommend to Her Majesty's Cabinet

that they should not press for withdrawal

of American Case if the agent of the

United States shall inform the Arbitra-

tors, before their meeting in June, that

the United States do not ask award on

indirect elaims....

Reported rejection untrue. Entire unan-

imity. Granville's suggestion inadmissi-

Referring to Earl Granville's note of 3d

General Schenck, the President sincerely

desires to promote an abiding friendship

between the two nations to which the

note so happily refers. Reviews the ob-

ject of appointment of the Joint High

Commission "to provide for an amicable

settlement of all causes of difference be-

tween the two countries." The United

States desire to maintain the jurisdiction

of the Tribunal over all unsettled claims-

that the questions of law involved therein

being adjudicated, all questions arising

out of the "Alabama Claims" may be

forever removed....

Commends his reply to Earl Granville's

note of 3d. Acceptance of friendly assur

ances of British note, but thinks position

taken therein unsustained by the history

of the negotiations between the two Gov-

Earl Granville desires certain changes made

in language of his proposal..

10. Gen. Schenck to Mr. Fish.

11. Mr. Fish to Gen. Schenck.

Cannot agree to Earl Granville's proposal.

Feb. 29, 1872. Desire of this Government to meet that

of Great Britain in any honorable adjust-

ment of the incidental question which

[blocks in formation]

Stating that he had left a copy of Mr. Fish's

instruction of 27th ultimo with Earl

Granville with regard to the province of

the Tribunal of Arbitration to decide

upon certain claims presented by the
Agent of the United States....
434

Transmits reply of Earl Granville of March

20th to Mr. Fish's instructions of 27th

ultimo, to him, (General Schenck,) and

printed memorandum in three parts. His

note treats upon incidental or consequen-

tial damages. Reviews the Johnson-

Clarendon Treaty. Part 1 of the memo-

randum treats "on the waiver of claims

for indirect losses contained in the 36th

Protocol." Part 2, "on the construction

of the Treaty of Washington." Part 3,

"on the amount of the claims for indi-

rect losses." General Schenck, in reply,
states that he will forward the above to
his Government without delay.... 435

Asks whether there is any objection to

British Government filing Counter Case

without prejudice to their position in

regard to consequential damages.

United States understand that British Gov-

ernment is bound to file Counter Case.

The rights of both parties will be the

same after filing Counter Case as before. 460

Reply to Earl Granville's note of March

20th to General Schenck. Review of cor-

respondence during and since the then

pending negotiations between Mr. John-

son and Lord Clarendon for a convention

for the settlement of the "Alabama

Claims" question.............

Interview with Earl Granville, who stated

that British Government believe that a

general desire prevails among the peo-

ple of the United States for the with-

drawal of claims for indirect losses. Gen-

eral Schenck replied that the Govern-

ment and citizens of the United States

were particularly desirous that the ques-

tion and extent of the liability of a neu-

tral should be arrived at, so that the rule

and law for all might be known in the

The indirect claims were not eliminated

from the general complaint of the United

States. Neither the Government nor the

American people have ever attached

much importance to the so-called indi-

rect claims. The United States do not

desire a pecuniary award on their ac-

count. The President is desirous of pre-

venting a failure of the Arbitration or

repudiation of the Treaty

19. Gen. Schenck to Mr. Fish.

April 25, 1872.

20. Mr. Fish to Gen. Schenck.

April 27, 1872.

It appears probable now that the British

Government will take such course as

will put an end to the Arbitration and

to the Treaty. Common conviction in

Great Britain that the best and most in-

fluential men of the United States desire

to have our Government recede from its

Neither in the Case nor in any instructions

have the United States asked for pecu-

niary damages on account of indirect

losses. It is thought essential that the

question be decided whether claims of

similar character can in the future be

advanced against the United States as a

neutral by Great Britain when the latter

is a belligerent....

21. Earl Granville to Sir E. Thornton. Conversation with General Schenck as to

April 29, 1872.

[blocks in formation]

25. Earl Granville to Sir E. Thornton.

26. Mr. Fish to Gen. Schenck...

(Telegram.) May 4, 1872.

Mr. Fish's suggestion. Views of Cabinet

and letter to General Schenck communi-

cating proposed draft of note

Earl Granville states that British Govern-

ment objects to having Arbitrators ex-

press opinion on indirect claims when

the two Governments agree that they

are not the subject of award.

draught of a possible note from Earl

Granville, in which it is stated that Her

Majesty's Government adhere to their

view that it is not within the province

of the Arbitrators to consider or decide

upon claims for indirect losses

Conversation with Mr. Fish as to state-

ment of Lord Granville respecting with-

drawal from arbitration. Suggestion

made by Mr. Fish that agreement for

the future should be offered by England

in return for engagement that United

States would not ask for money award

for indirect claims.

Sends introductory part of note trans-

mitted by telegraph April 30.

Majesty's Government do not wish to

commence a diplomatic controversy on

the subject of indirect losses, but merely

to comply with the desire of the Gov-

ernment of the United States to be ad-

vised of the reasons which had prompted

the declaration made by Her Majesty's

Government on the 3d of February..

Copy of letter to General Schenck, inclos-

ing proposed preface to draught of note. 484

The President cannot justify his assent to

the terms of the proposition of the Brit-

ish Government, as communicated in tel-

egram of 30th April. He cannot assent

to any proposition which, by implication

or inference, withdraws any part of the

claims or of the Case of this Government

from consideration of the Tribunal. The

President adheres to the opinion that it is

within the province of the Arbitrators to

consider and determine the liability of

Great Britain for all the claims put for-

ward by the United States.....

[blocks in formation]

Will urge Earl Granville to modify his pro-

posal. Asks for suggestions as to what

modifications would make it possible for

the President to assent to it. Apprehends

that, rather than submit indirect claims

to judgment of Tribunal, the British

Government would cease negotiations

and make an absolute declaration against

proceeding with the Arbitration. Asks if

the following were substituted for that

sent on April 30, would United States

give its assent: Her Majesty's Govern-

ment now ready to state that if the

United States do agree not to press for

pecuniary award before the Tribunal,

Her Majesty's Government will not, in

the event of becoming a belligerent while

the United States is a neutral, advance

any claims against the United States on

account of any indirect, remote or conse-

quential results of a failure to observe

their neutrality ...

Transmits amended proposal. Same sub-

ject as contained in No. 27 ....

An agreement binding future action of this

Government can be made only by treaty,

and would require the assent of the Sen-

ate. If Tribunal decides against pecu-

niary damages for consequential results

of failure of any nation to observe its

neutral obligations, such decision would

be regarded as settling the question

between the two Governments in the

Statement of Mr. Fish that United States

cannot withdraw any part of their Case.. 487

Conversation with General Schenck. Ob-

jections of American Government to pro-

posed draught note. Amended draught

note suggested by General Schenck.... 488

Copy of revised draught-note communicated

by Lord Granville to General Schenck.. 490

This Government is of opinion that the

submission of what are called the in-

direct claims is within the intent of the

Treaty, and their consideration within

the province of the Tribunal. The Presi-

dent is anxious to reach a settlement of

the important questions before the Tri-

bunal; is willing to consider and will

present, if possible, for consideration of

the Senate, any new article which may

be proposed by the British Government. 491

Apprehends that British Government will

declare against submission to arbitra-

tion of question of indirect damages.... 491

Communication by General Schenck of

telegram from Mr. Fish and of his in-

tended answer....

This Government cannot withdraw from

the province of the Tribunal what it be-

lieves to be entirely within their com-

petence. If the British Government per-

sist in their demand for the withdrawal

by the United States of indirect claims,

the responsibility of a failure of the

Treaty must rest with them....
493

37. Earl Granville to Sir E. Thornton. Conversation with General Schenck.

[blocks in formation]

United States Government suggest that

that of Her Majesty should propose a

supplementary article embodying ar-

rangement which should be submitted

to the Senate...

Has informed General Schenck that Her

Majesty's Government object to pro-

posing an article, and prefer the inter-

change of notes....

British Government, instead of proposing

new article to Treaty, prefer interchange

of notes, and are willing to further

modify their note

[blocks in formation]

Further conversation with General

Schenck respecting proposed article... 497

Earl Granville informs General Schenck

that a Cabinet meeting will be held this

morning, and wishes to meet him after-

Transmits a draught of an article sub-

mitted by the British Government, to

the effect that the President will make

no claim on the part of the United States

in respect of indirect losses to the Tri-

Statement communicated by General

Schenck as to the position of the ques-

tion of indirect claims..

Incloses copies of two notes and their

accompaniments from Earl Granville.

The first, dated the 10th instant, re-

capitulates, in a general way, what had

recently passed between him and General

Schenck; and the memorandum which

accompanied it relates to a proposed ex-

change of notes upon the subject of a

supplemental article. The second is a

brief note dated also the 10th, and was

accompanied by the draught of the arti-

cle referred to in his first..

Reply to Mr. Fish's dispatch of 16th

April to General Schenck, with a review

of the arguments and correspondence of

the United States in support of its claims

against Great Britain for indirect or

national losses and injuries extending

beyond the direct claims of American

citizens for specific losses arising from

captures by the "Alabama," "Florida,"

"Shenandoah," and "Georgia." Why

the British High Commissioners did not

« Anterior Continuar »