Nr. 5002. vessels which have given rise to the claims generically known as the "Ala- Ver. Staaten. bama Claims". It was his earnest hope that the deliberations of the Com- 27. Febr.1872. mission would result in an acceptance by Her Majesty's Government of the proposition, submitted by his direction, that a gross sum be agreed upon and paid to the United States, as an amicable settlement of all claims, of every description, arising out of such differences, instead of the lengthened controversy and litigation which he foresaw must attend any plan of arbitration. He was the more solicitous that such an amicable settlement, without the intervention of third parties, should be adopted, because he feared that so thorough and comprehensive a presentation before the Tribunal of Arbitration. of the matters of law and of fact on which the claims of this country rest, as it would be his duty to cause to be made, might for the moment revive past excitements and arouse unnecessary apprehensions, if not imperil those ties of international kindness and good-will he so much desires to strengthen and make perpetual. | The regret which he felt for the rejection by Her Majesty's Commissioners of the proposition for an amicable settlement is revived with great force by the necessity of this correspondence. The proposition for a Joint High Commission, which was made by Her Majesty's Government, would not have received the approbation of the President had he supposed it was not to comprehend a consideration and adjustment of all the differences growing out of the acts of the cruizers, nor could he have given his sanction to the Treaty had it been suggested to him, or had he believed that any class of the claims which had been presented by this Government were excluded by the terms of submission from presentation on the part of this Government to the Tribunal of Arbitration. It was, in his appreciation, the chief merit of the mode of adjustment adopted by the Commission, that it was on both sides a frank, full, and unreserved surrender to impartial arbitrament, under the rules therein prescribed, of everything that had created such differences. || Whatever degree of importance might here or there be attached to any of these complaints, the President desired and intended, as had the American Commissioners, that all, of every form and character, should be laid before the Tribunal for its final and absolute disposition, either by recognition and settlement, or by rejection, in order that in the future the harmony of personal and political intercourse between the two countries might never again be disturbed by any possible phase of the controversy. In his opinion, since entry upon a thorough trial of the issues. which divide the two Governments could not be avoided, the claims for national or indirect losses (referred to in the note of Earl Granville), as they are put forward by this Government, involve questions of public law which the interest of both Governments requires should be definitely settled. I Therefore it is with unfeigned surprise and sincere regret that the President has received the intimation conveyed in Earl Granville's note, that Her Majesty's Government hold that it is not within the province of the Tribunal Ver. Staaten. Nr. 5002. of Arbitration to decide upon certain claims for indirect losses and injuries. 27. Febr. 1872 His Lordship, however, does not assign any reason for the opinion that losses and injuries with respect to which there has been no concealment which were presented to the British negotiators at the opening of the discussion in precisely the same manner as they are put forward in the "Case", not as claims for which a specific demand was made, but as losses and injuries consequent upon the acts complained of, and necessarily to be taken into equitable consideration in a final settlement of all differences between the two countries which remained unchallenged through the entire negotiations, and not relinquished in the Treaty, but covered by one of its alternatives, are not within the jurisdiction of the Arbitrators. || Unadvised as to the reasoning which has brought Her Majesty's Government to the opinion stated by Lord Granville, the President is unable to adopt it, but being convinced of the justice of his views, that the Treaty contemplated the settlement of all the claims of the United States, is of the opinion that he could not abandon them except after a fair decision by an impartial arbitration. He seeks no meaning in the Treaty which is not patent on its face; he advances no pretensions at Geneva which were not put forth pending the negotiations at Washington. This Government knows not where to find the meaning or the intent of the Treaty unless within the Treaty itself. The object of the Treaty, as declared in its preamble, was "to provide for an amicable settlement of all causes of difference between the two countries"; but the Treaty is not, of itself, the settlement, it is an agreement between the Governments as to the mode of reaching a settlement, and its Article XI engages the Contracting Parties to consider the result of the arbitration as a full, perfect, and final settlement of all the claims. Until that be reached, no proffer of withholding an estimate of the indirect losses, dependent on the hope of an amicable settlement, can be claimed as a waiver or an estoppel. The first Article recites that differences have arisen between the two Governments, and still exist, and provides, "in order to remove and adjust all complaints and claims on the part of the United States, that all the claims growing out of acts committed by the aforesaid vessels, and generically known as the 'Alabama Claims', "be referred to a Tribunal of Arbitration, to be composed as therein provided. There is no limitation or restriction to any part or description of the claims. All the claims growing out of certain acts, and generically known as the "Alabama Claims", were referred. What they were, is a question of fact and of history. Which of them are well founded is a question for the Tribunal of Arbitration. || 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 Ver. Staaten. Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, or in other Nr. 5002. public papers, to show that the expectation of this Government has, from the 27. Febr. 1372. 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. In the progress of the acts which gave rise to the claims, high British authority was not wanting to warn Her Majesty's Government in the House of Commons that "they had been inflicting an amount of damage on that country (the United States) greater than would be produced by 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 combatted 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 on 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 Powers (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 Nr. 5002. Ver. Staaten. Treaty, language was purposely agreed upon and used to express the idea 27. Febr.1872. 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 favour 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 judges 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 for ever 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 am, etc. Hamilton Fish. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Nr. 5003. Min. d. Ausw. an den Gesandten der Ver. Foreign Office, March 20, 1872. Gross Sir, I have laid before my colleagues Mr. Fish's despatch of the 27th Nr. 5003. ultimo, of which, at my request, and authorized by your Government, you britannien. gave me a copy on the 14th instant. Her Majesty's Government recognize 20. März 1872. 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 3rd 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 despatch 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 IV th 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 |