"Sir, Lord Stanley to Sir F. Bruce. "Foreign Office, May 2, 1867. "Mr. Adams has this day communicated to me the substance of a despatch which he had received from Mr. Seward in reply to the proposals which you were instructed by my despatch of the 9th of March to make on the subject of the claims arising out of the civil war in the United States. "In this despatch Mr. Seward states that the Government of the United States adhere to the view which they formerly expressed as to the best way of dealing with these claims. They cannot, consequently, consent to a special and peculiar limitation of arbitrament in regard to the Alabama claims such as Her Majesty's Government suggests. They cannot give any preference to the Alabama claims over others in regard to the form of arbitrament suggested; and while they agree that all mutual claims which arose during the civil war between citizens and subjects of the two countries ought to be amicably and speedily adjusted, they must insist that they be adjusted by one and the same form of tribunal, with like and the same forms, and on principles common to all. "The President of the United States, therefore, respectfully declines the proposal of Her Majesty's Government; but reciprocating the feelings of good-will which have been expressed on the part of Great Britain, the United States' Government will cheerfully receive any further suggestions that Her Majesty's Government may have to offer. "I am, &c. Chap.XVII. (Extract.) Chap.XVII. the vessels whose depredations are complained of; just as, in the case of the general claims alluded to by me, the actual proceedings and relations of Her Majesty's Government, its officers, agents, and subjects in regard to the United States, in regard to the rebellion and the rebels, are necessarily connected with the transactions out of which those general claims arise. "The language thus used by Mr. Seward appears to Her Majesty's Government to be open to the construction that it is the desire of the United States' Government that any tribunal to be agreed upon in dealing either with the so-called Alabama claims or with the 'general claims' might enter into the question whether the act of policy of Her Majesty's Government in recognizing the Confederate States as a belligerent Power was or was not suitable to the circumstances of the time when the recognition was made; a construction which, after the distinct and repeated avowal of Her Majesty's Government that they could not consent to a reference of such a question, Her Majesty's Government can hardly suppose that it was intended by Mr. Seward that the passage in his despatch should bear. "But to prevent any misapprehension on this subject, Her Majesty's Government think it necessary distinctly to say, both as regards the so-called Alabama claims brought forward by citizens of the United States and as regards the general claims, that they cannot depart, directly or indirectly, from their refusal to 'refer to a foreign Power to determine whether the policy of recognizing the Confederate States as a belligerent Power was or was not suitable to the circumstances of the time when the negotiation was made,' "As regards the so-called Alabama claims, the only point which Her Majesty's Government can consent to refer to the decision of an arbiter is the question of the moral responsibility of Her Majesty's Government, on the assumption that an actual state of war existed between the Government of the United States and the Confederate States; and on that assumption it would be for the arbiter to determine whether there had been any such failure on the part of the British Government as a neutral in the observance, legally or morally, of any duties or relations towards the Government of the United States as could be deemed to involve a moral responsibility on the part of the British Government to make good losses of American citizens caused by the Alabama and other vessels of the same class, "As regards the general claims, the question of moral responsibility on the part of Her Majesty's Government does not, and cannot, come into dispute at all. "Mr. Seward rightly supposes that Her Majesty's Government contemplated two tribunals for the adjudication, one of the Alabama claims, the other of the general claims; the one being, in the first instance, at all events, the tribunal of an arbiter, who would be called upon to pronounce on the principles of the moral responsibility of the British Government, and on the nature of whose decision would depend the question of the appointment of a Mixed Commission for the exami- Chap.XVII. nation in detail of the several claims of citizens of the United States to which that decision applied, namely, those arising out of the depredations of the Alabama and other similar vessels, and the adjudication of the sums payable in each case; the other, in its commencement and to its close, a purely Mixed Commission for the examination of the general claims of the subjects and citizens of both countries arising out of the war, and the adjudication of the sums payable by either country in each case. "The distinction between the two classes of claims is clear: the one may never come before a Mixed Commission, and therefore may not require the assistance of an arbiter to decide differences of detail arising between the Commissioners; the other, though originally brought before a Mixed Commission, may possibly require the intervention of an arbiter in case of a difference of opinion among the members of the Commission which could not be otherwise reconciled, and for which case provision would be made in the ordinary way in the Convention for the Settlement of the Mixed Claims, by the insertion of Articles in regard to the selection of an arbiter. "The functions of such an arbiter, as well as of an arbiter for a like purpose in the other Mixed Commission, for which provision would have to be made to meet the contingency of the so-called Alabama claims coming eventually under the cognizance of a Mixed Commission, would have nothing in common with the functions of the arbiter, to whom the question of principle involved in the last-mentioned class of claims would be referred, "Her Majesty's Government cannot but apprehend that, if Mr. Seward really requires unrestricted arbitration as applicable to both classes of claims, and that the tribunal in both classes of cases should proceed upon the same principles and be clothed with the same powers, he has not fully considered the wide and inevitable distinction which exists between the classes; and in directing you to submit to the consideration of Mr. Seward the explanations and observations con. tained in this despatch, I have to instruct you to express the earnest hope of Her Majesty's Government that the Government of the United States will, on further reflection, accept without hesitation the proposal made in my despatches to Sir F. Bruce of the 9th of March and of the 24th of May, both of this year, namely, 'limited reference to arbitration in regard to the so-called Alabama claims,' and 'adjudication by means of a Mixed Commission of general claims.' "You will furnish Mr. Seward with a copy of this despatch. Chap.XVII. "Sir, Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. "Department of State, Washington, "November 29, 1867. "The Government of the United States adheres to the views concerning the proposed arbitration which I have heretofore had occasion to make known, through your Legation, to Lord Stanley. We are now distinctly informed by Lord Stanley's letter that the limited reference of the so-called Alabama claims which Lord Stanley proposes is tendered upon the condition that the United States shall waive before the arbitrator the position they have constantly maintained from the beginning, namely, that the Queen's Proclamation of 1861, which accorded belligerent rights to insurgents against the authority of the United States, was not justified on any grounds, either of necessity or moral right, and, therefore, was an act of wrongful intervention, a departure from the obligation of existing Treaties, and without the sanction of the law of nations. The condition being inadmissible, the proposed limited reference is therefore declined. "I am, &c. (Signed) "WILLIAM H. SEWARD." Here the subject dropped. But Mr. Reverdy Johnson, who succeeded Mr. Adams in 1868, as Minister of the United States in London, was instructed to re-open it with Lord Stanley, then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. This he did at several interviews, first, by throwing out suggestions that Great Britain might dispose of the question by payment of a sum of money, 1 Extract from Mr. Reverdy Johnson's Instructions.—(Communicated to Lord Stanley by Mr. Reverdy Johnson, 16th October, 1868.) "Our conclusion is, that in the event that you become convinced that an arrangement of the Naturalization question which would be satisfactory to the United States, in view of your previous instructions, can be made, then and in that case you may open concurrent negotiations upon the two questions first herein-named, to wit, San Juan and the Claims question; but that those two negotiations shall not be completed, or your proceedings therein be deemed obligatory, until after the Naturalization question shall have been satisfactorily settled by Treaty or by Law of Parliament." A Protocol on the Naturalization question had been signed before Mr. Johnson began to treat on the "Claims" question, which these Instructions authorized him to do. or by a cession of territory, and afterwards by proposing Chap.XVII, the outline of a Protocol or Convention, which Lord Stanley was willing to adopt. A draft of a Convention was drawn up accordingly. To this various objections were raised by the American Government; and in order to remove them it was thoroughly recast, so as to meet the wishes of Mr. Seward. On the 14th January, 1869, it was signed sub spe rati by Mr. Reverdy Johnson, and by Lord Stanley's successor the Earl of Clarendon, and was officially communicated by the President to the Senate of the United States for approval. On the 13th April (General Grant having in the meanwhile become President) it was resolved in the Senate, by a vote of 54 to 1, that the Senate "does not advise and consent to the ratification of the Convention." I do not propose to enter into the details of this negotiation or of Mr. Johnson's Convention, nor shall I attempt to criticize the one or the other. The Convention, in substance, was a simple agreement to refer "all claims on the part of the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty upon the Government of the United States, and all claims on the part of the citizens of the United States upon the Government of Her Britannic Majesty, including the so-called Alabama claims," presented or to be presented between certain specified dates, to four Commissioners, two to be named by the Queen and two by the President of the United States, with a provision for umpirage; the Commissioners to sit at Washington, and to receive and peruse the official correspondence respecting any claims submitted to them, and also such further documents in writing as either Government might present, and to hear, if required, one person on each side. 'Nevertheless, if the Commissioners, or any two of them, shall think desirable that a Sovereign, or Head of a friendly State, should be Arbitrator or Umpire in case of any claim, the Commissioners shall report to that effect to their respective Governments, who shall there |