discontinue verbal controversy." The Pall-Mall Gazette, usually fair and courteous, though hostile, charged that the claims had been bought up by "American legislators and officers of state even among the higher and more influential grade." The Spectator charged us with "sharp practice," and "a discreditable forcing of the natural meaning of the treaty in order to win popularity at the elections." The Daily News called the claims "extravagant demands intended as an electioneering card," and complained that the case was a "long and passionate pleading," in which "chapter after chapter is devoted to the presumed motives of our [British] public men."

In fact, fault was found indiscriminately with nearly everything in the Case except the one thing afterward made the main subject of complaint, namely, the allegation that it contained demands which were not included in the submission in the treaty. That was an objection which did not appear in the British press until weeks after the exchange of the documents at Geneva, and, so far as I am aware, was not taken by any person entitled to speak by the authority of the government until a still later day.

Even as late as the middle of January negotiations were going on between the respective agents and counsel regarding the

Action of the British

times and the manner of making supplemental arguments government. at Geneva, (should the tribunal call for any,) without an intimation that there might be a difference as to the subjects to be argued. It was not until the 3d of February that the ministry announced officially that they had not anticipated that the claims which have improperly become known as the "indirect claims" would be presented at Geneva. Indeed, there is some evidence that the British government was occupied with the parts of the Case which had offended the Brit- Contemplated reish press; for I gather from General Schenck's telegram of of the American case the 27th of February, reporting to you an interview with Lord Granville, that the cabinet had under consideration at one time the propriety of asking for the absolute withdrawal of the American Case, on other grounds than its presentation of the "indirect claims.”1

quest for withdrawal

vorable to the United

For several weeks, I may say months, the London press continued to discuss our national claims. This discussion was conducted Opinions of the with a vehemence, and with insinuations or charges of bad Continental press fafaith, which attracted the attention of the Continental States. press. In all the principal capitals of Europe, the Alabama claims became the subject of comment. The unanimity of the verdict in favor of our construction of the treaty was as complete as was the unanimity of the English press in favor of Great Britain, and it was universally conceded that England could not retire from the arbitration without dishonor. I inclose a variety of extracts on this subject.

counter cases.

During all this time I was occupied in Paris in the preparation of the counter-case, and the other duties of the agency. On Exchange of the the 15th of April I was able to comply with the requirements of the treaty and the directions of the tribunal by delivering the counter-case and accompanying documents to Mr. Favrot for the British agent and for the arbitrators. The volume of evidence accom

"He [Lord Granville] then said to me that in his note of the 3d he had stated the views of Her Majesty's government as to indirect claims; that there were other portions of [the] American Case they regret, and some of which appear to introduce matters not germane to reference; that he has not been able to consult cabinet here, but is individually prepared to recommend to them, and he thinks with reasonable expectation of success, that they should not press for withdrawal of American Case if the Government of the United States," &c., &c.—(Correspondence respecting Geneva Arbitration, page 5.)

panying the counter-case was selected and arranged under the directions of the counsel. At the same time I delivered French translations of these documents, and also two volumes containing French translations of selected pieces from the seven volumes of evidence submitted with the case in December.

of the secretaries.

This, and much of the subsequent work, could not have been comIndustry and zeal pleted in season had not the secretaries been willing, when called upon, to work day and night for the purpose. Lord Tenterden met me at Geneva in April with unreserve, and in the Friendly views of Spirit of conciliation. Under instructions from his governthe British agent. ment, he lodged with the secretary of the tribunal a notice to the individual arbitrators of the action taken by Her Majesty's gov ernment on the 3d of February, in order that the act of filing the British counter case should not be deemed to be a waiver of that action. But he did not conceal his own strong desire to save the treaty, and he left on my mind the conviction that the judicial solution which the tribunal subsequently made of the political difficulty raised by the British note of the 3d of February would be accepted by the British government. The time between the 15th of April and the 15th of June was occupied by the counsel in the preparation of their argument. the counsel regarded This argument has attracted great attention throughout as masterly. Europe, and has received universal praise as a masterly vindication of our rights.

The argument by

United States argument filed.

On the 15th of June the tribunal re-assembled, the agents and counsel on both sides being present. The argument of the United States was duly delivered, (together with the French translation made for the convenience of the arbitrators;) but the British British move for agent, instead of filing the British argument, asked for an adlong adjournment. journment of several months, in order to enable the two governments to arrange politically the questions in dispute.

Consequent nego

tiations.

I had already discussed with General Cushing the probability of adjusting these differences by the action of the tribunal. Instead of assenting to the proposed adjournment, I therefore, with the full concurrence of the counsel, asked for an adjournment of two days, in order to give us time to consider the position. Before the tribunal convened again, steps were taken for removing the difficulty through the action of that body. In the proceedings which followed we acted as a unit on our side. Happily they resulted in a solution by the tribunal, which proved to be acceptable to both governments. The arbitrators announced their opinion that the claims known a the indirect claims did not constitute, on principles of international law applicable to such cases, good and sufficient foundation for an award of compensation or computation of damages between nations. On the side of Great Britain the solution was a practical one; no damages were to be awarded for this class of claims. On our side the solution was reached in the manner pointed out by the treaty, viz, by the action of the court. On the suggestion of the other side, this unofficial act was then formally entered as an official judgment, in the following language:

Adjudication on the indirect claims,

Count Sclopis, on behalf of all the arbitrators, then declared that the said several claims for indirect losses mentioned in the statement made by the agent of the United States on the 25th instant, and referred to in the statement just made by the agent of Her Britannic Majesty, are, and from henceforth will be, wholly excluded from the consideration of the Tribunal, and directed the secretary to embody this declaration in the protocol of this day's proceedings.

Friendly feeling on

In all these proceedings, I found the British agent and counsel sharing our sincere and earnest desire to save the both sides. treaty.

The British argument was next filed, with my consent, and an effort was then made on their side to re-open argument and secure British argument a new hearing on the whole question. This was success- filed. Motion for fur fully resisted, and the tribunal took a recess for a fortnight.

ther argument.

On Monday, the 15th of July, it re-assembled. The efforts on the part of Great Britain to secure re-argument were renewed. The neutral arbitrators said that they had examined the whole case, and that they wanted no re-hearing. It was decided by the tribunal to give the opinion of the arbitrators seriatim on each cruiser, beginning with the Florida.

Opinions on the

Sir Alexander Cockburn presented the facts and reasoning affecting this vessel at an extreme length, holding Great Britain free of blame. The other arbitrators held her responsible, Florida. reserving, however, the question as to the effect of a commission.

Sir Alexander Cockburn, then, in vigorous language, and with great warmth of manner, urged the tribunal to permit an argument upon the meaning of the words "due diligence," upon the effect of a commission, and upon the law respecting the supplies of coal. The tribunal granted the request. I was, myself, in favor of allowing further arguments, within some defined scope. I thought that we had nothing to lose by an argument, in which we had the reply, in the hands of such masters of discussion as General Cushing, Mr. Evarts, and Mr. Waite. The hearings were ordered, and, before the dissolution of the tribunal, arguments had been made (always on the suggestion Supplemental of England) on the following points, the British counsel agreements ordered leading and ours following: 1, on the meaning of the words "due diligence;" 2, on the effect of a commission on the offending vessel; 3, on supplies of coal; 4, on the recruitment of men for the Shenandoah, at Melbourne; 5, on the effect of the entry of the Florida into the port of Mobile; 6, on the subject of interest; 7, on the general subject of the statement of claims. These arguments were presented generally both in the English and the French languages.

and made.

The protocols which accompany this dispatch show the order in which these various papers were delivered, and the order in which the arbitrators considered the various cruisers. It was not until after the arguments on the first four subjects that the formal votes Decisions of the required by the treaty were taken separately upon the tribunal. responsibility of Great Britain as to each cruiser. The tribunal decided unanimously that there was responsibility for the acts of the Alabama. Count Sclopis, Mr. Stämpfli, and Mr. Adams held that there was responsibility for the acts of the Shenandoah after leaving Melbourne, but not before. Great Britain was released from responsibility as to the other vessels, except the Florida; Mr. Adams holding that there was responsibility for the acts of the Retribution, and Mr. Stämpfli holding that there was responsibility for the acts of that vessel only so far as related to the Emily Fisher. The formal vote on the Florida was taken at a subsequent conference, after agument by counsel on the special question of the effect of the entry into Mobile. Count Sclopis, Viscount d'Itajuba, Mr. Stämpfli, and Mr. Adams held there was responsibility for her acts.

The deliberations of the tribunal, on the subject of damages, were held with closed doors. The arbitrators asked each party for comparative tables, which were furnished. On our side,

Damages

we limited ourselves to the request of the tribunal. On the other side, new tables were put in with new and elaborate criticisms upon our list of claims. We did not object to this irregular criticism, but claimed the right of reply given by the treaty.

Award.

The tribunal, at length, announced that a result had been reachedthat fifteen and a half millions of dollars would be awarded as a gross sum, to be paid by Great Britain to the United States. It does not appear in the protocols how the arbitrators arrived at this amount. I am informed that it was reached by mutual conces

sions.

ward a sum ATA FLOSS

The neutral arbitrators and Mr. Adams, from the beginning of the Determination to proceedings, were convinced of the policy of awarding a sum in gross. For some weeks before the decision was given, I felt sure that the arbitrators would not consent to send the case to assessors until they should have exhausted all efforts to agree themselves upon the sum to be paid. We therefore devoted our energies toward securing such a sum as should be practically an indemnity to the sufferers. Whether we have or have not been successful can be determined only by the final division of the sum.

every stage.

It is due to our counsel to state that in all the proceedings which were Counsel advised on taken since their arrival in Europe no step was made without their advice and consent, and many important ones were taken on their suggestion and origination. That their labors have been incessant any one may imagine who sees the mass of able papers which came from their pens.

Independence and

arbitrators.

The opinions which the neutral arbitrators presented bear testimony to the sagacity, good judgment, and knowledge of ability of ratral the principles of law and fact at issue, which they brought to bear on the case, and to the untiring labor with which they mastered the varied and difficult questions submitted by the parties for their decisions. It only remains to say that they exhibited throughout marked patience and good temper, and that these admirable qualities were sometimes needed. These opinions will undoubtedly be read with interest. I take the liberty, in closing, to make a few remarks upon the main points at issue, as they are treated in the opinions of the different arbitrators.

Due diligence.

What was ela red by the United States,

1. DUE DILIGENCE.

We maintained in the Case that the diligence of the neutral should "be proportioned to the magnitude of the subject, and to the dignity and strength of the power which is to exercise it," (page 158,) and that it should be "gauged by the character and magnitude of the matter which it may affect, by the relative condition of the parties, by the ability of the party incurring the liability to exercise the diligence required by the exigencies of the case, and by the extent of the injury which may follow negli gence," (page 152.) We thought, for instance, that it would not be just to hold Brazil, with its extended coast, sparse population, and feeble means of internal communication, and Great Britain, with its compact population, its net-work of railways and telegraphs, and its administrative system always under the control of the central government, to an identical standard of active vigilance.

Potion of Great Britain. On the other side it was said:

Her Majesty's government knows of no distinction between more dignified and less dignified powers; it regards all sovereign states as enjoying equal rights, and equally

subject to all ordinary international obligations; and it is firmly persuaded that there is no state in Europe or America which would be willing to claim or accept any immunity in this respect, on the ground of its inferiority to others in extent, military force, or population.

Count Sclopis, in his opinion, says:

Views of Count Scloris.

The words due diligence necessarily imply the idea of a relation between the duty and its object. It is impossible to define a priori and abstractly an absolute duty of diligence. The thing to which the diligence relates determines its degree.

*

As to the measure of activity in the performance of the duties of a neutral, I think the following rule should be laid down; that it should be in a direct ratio to the actual danger to which the belligerent will be exposed through the laxity of the neutral, and in an inverse ratio to the direct means which the belligerent can control for averting the danger.

The Tribunal, in its award, says:

#

Decision of the tribunal.

The due diligence referred to in the first and third of the said rules ought to be exercised by neutral governments in exact proportion to the risks to which either of the belligerents may be exposed from a failure to fulfill the obligations of neutrality on their part. * The circumstances out of which the facts constituting the subject-matter of the present controversy arose were of a nature to call for the exercise, on the part of Her Britannic Majesty's government, of all possible solicitude for the observance of the rights and duties involved in the proclamation of neutrality issued by Her Majesty, on the 13th of May, 1861.

2. TOLERATION OF INSURGENT OPERATIONS IN ENGLAND, AND ENGLISH FEELING AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. Count Sclopis says, respecting this point:

L'nfriendliness of
England.

Views of Count
Sclopis.

The British government was fully informed that the confederates had established in England a branch of their means of attack and defense against the United States. Commissioners representing the government of Richmond were domiciled in London, and had put themselves in communication with the English government. Lord Russell had received these confederate representatives in an unofficial way. The first visit took place on the 11th of May, 1861, that is to say, three days before the Queen's proclamation of neutrality, and four days before Mr. Adams arrived in London as the minister of the United States. And further, the English government could not but know that great commercial houses were managing the interests of the confederates at Liverpool, a town which, from that time, was very openly pronounced in favor of the South. In Parliament itself opinions were before long openly expressed in favor of the insurgents. The Queen's ministers themselves did not disguise that in their opinion it would be very difficult for the American Union to re-establish itself as before. It results from this, in my opinion, that the English government found itself, during the first years of the war of secession, in the midst of circumstances which could not but have an influence, if not directly upon itself, at least upon a part of the population subject to the British Crown. No government is safe against certain waves of public opinion, which it cannot master at its will. I am far from thinking that the animus of the English government was hostile to the Federal Government during the war. Yet there were grave dangers for the United States in Great Britain and her colonies which there were no direct means for averting. England therefore should have fulfilled her duties as a neutral by the exercise of a diligence equal to the gravity of the danger. It cannot be denied that there were moments when its watchfulness seemed to fail and when feebleness in certain branches of the public service resulted in great detriment to the United States.

*

*

*

*

Views of Viscount

Viscount d'Itajuba has not placed on record his opinion on this subject, unless it can be gathered from a single passage in his remarks upon the effect of a commission on an offending de Itajuba. cruiser, when he says, "By seizing or detaining the vessel the neutral only prevents the belligerent from deriving advantage from the fraud committed within its territory by the same belligerent; while, by not proceeding against a guilty vessel it exposes itself to having its good faith justly called in question by the other belligerent."