416

Sumner's speech was unwise. He placed the damages at $15,000,000 for "individual losses," $110,000,000 as the loss to our merchant marine due to the recognition of belligerency by the British government to the Confederates and the fitting out of private vessels in British ports; and finally $2,000,000,000 as her share of the costs of the war. Sumner claimed that the "Rebellion was originally encouraged by hope of support from England; it was strengthened at once by the concession of belligerent rights on the ocean; it was fed to the end by British supplies;" and thus "not weeks or months but years were added in this way to our war so full of costly sacrifice." As the war had cost four thousand million dollars and as British intervention had doubled its duration Sumner said: England is partly responsible for the additional expenditure." This speech Sumner thought "kindly and pacific in tone,''* but his claim was certainly outrageous and the tone of his speech most belli

cose.

66

66

Charles Francis Adams wrote that the practical effect of this proceeding is to raise the scale of our own demands of reparation so very high that there is no chance of negotiation left, unless the English have lost all their spirit and character."

He even

341-342, 368-372 for Sumner's part in these transactions; Thomas W. Balch, The Alabama Arbitration, pp. 95-107; Globe, 41st Congress, 1st session, App. 21.

*Pierce's Sumner, vol. iv., p. 386 et seq.

† C. F. Adams, Jr., Charles Francis Adams, p. 380.

felt apprehensive that the government might ultimately seize Canada by way of indemnification,* for our claim against England was too large to be paid in money and Canada was an easy asset. J. W. Grimes said in a letter to Fessenden: "Sumner has greatly injured our cause by presenting so many perfectly absurd arguments and urging them with so much bitterness." Sumner, however, had no desire for war and said that we

should acquire Canada only by "peaceful annexation, by the voluntary act of England and with the cordial assent of the colonists."

President Grant expressed his entire dissent from the provisions of the treaty," thanked and congratulated Sumner on his speech," but turned the English matter over to the Secretary of State, Hamilton Fish, and directed his attention to the expansion of the country toward the south instead of the north.

During 1870 Secretary Fish pursued the phantom of annexing Canada, even suggesting to the British minister, Sir Edward Thornton, that Great Britain withdraw from Canada and submit to the voters of the Dominion the question of independence. But in September, 1870, Thornton told

66

Fish that the question of Canadian independence had no connection with the Alabama claims and that it was impossible for Great Britain to inaugurate a separation," not even to the extent of "" providing for the reference of the question of independence to a popular vote of the people of the Dominion. Independence means annexation."’* Fish then dropped this phase of the question from the discussions.

Meanwhile Sir John Rose, a member of the Canadian ministry, had gone to England to labor there in the interests of peace and justice. He intimated to Fish in a private letter that the British cabinet was "disposed to enter on negotiations " and early in January, 1871, he came to Washington to confer with Fish regarding the subject, giving him a confidential memorandum which later resulted in the Treaty of Washington.

Fish then sought Sumner's advice, to which he had a right owing to the latter's position as head of the Foreign Relations Committee,|| but the relations between the two had been

*

Adams, Treaty of Washington, pp. 157-160. Ibid, pp. 126-128, 162. Lord Granville in a letter to Mr. Gladstone said that "the best bargain for this country [Great Britain] would be to let the San Juan Arbitration go by default on condition that the Americans give up the Alabama claims of all sorts. It would take away the grievance of the Americans and we should give up what the Americans are sure to get in the end ."- Fitzmaurice, Second Earl Granville, p. 83 and letter on p. 86 (Longmans, Green & Co.). J. C. Bancroft Davis, Mr. Fish and the Alabama Claims, pp. 59-64; Moore, International Arbitrations, vol. i., pp. 525-526.

*

Adams, Treaty of Washington, pp. 145-146.

broken off by the Motley affair and Sumner, feeling that he was no longer a powerful factor in the conduct of foreign affairs, on January 17 submitted a proposition for the withdrawal of Great Britain from this hemisphere, by which, as Adams says, "he hoped at once to put an immediate stop to the proposed negotiation."*

But Fish and the President ignored Sumner's advice and after several conferences with Rose and Thornton an agreement was reached by which the two governments consented to submit their differences to a Joint High Commission which should by treaty arrange for the method of procedure and settlement and complete the necessary details. Each government thereupon appointed its commissioners. Those of the United States were instructed to consider: (1) the fisheries; (2) the navigation of the St. Lawrence; (3) reciprocal trade between the United States and the Dominion of Canada; (4) the northwest water boundary and the Island of

* Ibid, pp. 147, 163, et seq.; Davis, Mr. Fish and the Alabama Claims, pp. 65-67. For a defense of Sumner's course see Pierce's Sumner, vol. iv., chap. lvi.

President Grant appointed Hamilton Fish, Secretary of State; Samuel Nelson, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court; Robert C. Schenck, Minister to England; Rockwood Hoar, formerly Attorney-General of the United States; and George H. Williams, formerly United States Senator from Oregon. Queen Victoria appointed George Frederick Samuel, Earl De Grey and Ripon, Sir Stafford Northcote, Sir Edward Thornton, British Minister at Washington, Sir John Alexander MacDonald, Premier of Canada, and Montague Bernard, Professor of International Law in the University of Oxford.