Page images
PDF
EPUB

accorded a recognition of belligerent rights only in one case, namely, in the case of the flagrant war between France and the allied European powers in 1793. In all other cases we have either disallowed belligerent rights or preserved silence.

[ocr errors]

Lord Stanley says that "if Mr. Seward means to base the present claims on the ground that the British government should, while acknowledging the blockade, have awaited the arrival of a Confederate ship of war in British ports before admitting the possession by the Confederate States' of a ship of war, and, therefore, their right to be treated on the high seas as a belligerent power, a reference to dates will show that the question would have been raised on the arrival of the Sumter at Trinidad, and of the Nashville at Southampton, some months before Mr. Adams laid his complaints against the vessels mentioned in the summary of claims."

To this argument it is deemed a sufficient reply that neither of the two vessels named in fact appeared in a British port or upon the high seas until after the Queen's proclamation, which tendered hospitalities and assistance to them, was issued.

I do not deem it necessary to reply at large to the reflections which Lord Stanley makes upon the conduct of this government in regard to the proceedings of the so-called Fenians. The Fenian movement neither begins nor ends in the United States; the movers in those proceedings are not native citizens of the United States; but they are natives of Great Britain, though some of them have assumed naturalization in the United States. Their quarrel with Great Britain is not an American, but a British one, as old, I sincerely hope it may not be as lasting, as the union of the United Kingdom. Their aim is not American, but British revolution. In seeking to make the territory of the United States a base for the organization of a republic in Ireland, and of military and naval operations for its establishment there, they allege that they have followed as an example proceedings of British subjects in regard to our civil war, allowed by her Majesty's government. The policy and proceedings of the two governments in regard to those parallel movements have not assimilated. The United States government has not recognized the Irish republic as a belligerent, and has disarmed its forces when found within our territories and waters.

With regard to the manner in which this protracted controversy shall be brought to an end, we agree entirely with the sentiments

expressed by Lord Stanley. We should even think it better that it be brought to an end which might, perhaps, in some degree disappoint the parties, than that it should continue to alienate the two nations, each of which is powerful enough to injure the other deeply, while their maintenance of conflicting principles in regard to intervention would be a calamity to all nations. The United States think it not only easier and more desirable that Great Britain should acknowledge and satisfy the claims for indemnity which we have submitted, than it would be to find an equal and wise arbitrator who would consent to adjudicate them. If, however, her Majesty's government, for reasons satisfactory to them, should prefer the remedy of arbitration, the United States would not object. The United States, in that case, would expect to refer the whole controversy just as it is found in the correspondence which has taken place between the two governments, with such further evidence and arguments as either party may desire, without imposing restrictions, conditions, or limitations upon the umpire, and without waiving any principle or argument on either side. They cannot consent to waive any question upon the consideration that it involves a point of national honor; and, on the other hand, they will not require that any question of national pride or honor shall be expressly ruled and determined as such. If her Majesty's government shall concur in these views, the President will be ready to treat concerning the choice of an umpire.

Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams.

August 12, 1867. — I have now to recur to Lord Stanley's despatch to Sir Frederick Wright Bruce of the 24th of May, concerning the so-called Alabama claims, a copy of which paper he placed in my hands during our recent visit at Auburn.

You are authorized to inform his lordship that I did not understand his previous offer of arbitration to apply alone to the claims arising out of the depredations of the Alabama, to the exclusion of those arising out of the depredations of the Florida, the Shenandoah, the Georgia, and other vessels of that description; and that, on the contrary, Lord Stanley's offer of limited arbitration was understood to apply equally to those claims arising out of the depredations of the several vessels last named as to those arising out of the depredations of the Alabama.

His lordship now observes that the British government is ready to go to arbitration upon the question whether, in the matters connected with all those vessels out of whose depredations the claims of American citizens have arisen, the course pursued by the British government and those who acted upon its authority was such as would involve a moral responsibility on the part of the British government to make good, either in whole or in part, the losses of American citizens.

The President considers these terms to be at once comprehensive and sufficiently precise to include all the claims of American citizens for depredations upon their commerce during the late rebellion which have been the subject of complaint upon the part of this government. But the United States government, in this view, would deem itself at liberty to insist before the arbiter that the actual proceedings and relations of the British government, its officers, agents, and subjects, towards the United States in regard to the rebellion and the rebels as they occurred during that rebellion, are among the matters which are connected with the vessels whose depredations are complained of, just as in the case of general claims alluded to by Lord Stanley, the actual proceedings and relations of her Majesty's government, its officers, agents, and subjects, in regard to the United States and in regard to the rebellion and the rebels, are necessarily connected with the transactions out of which those general claims arose.

Lord Stanley's plan seems to be to constitute two descriptions of tribunals one an arbiter to determine the question of the moral responsibility of the British government in respect of the Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and other vessels of that class; and the other a mixed commission to adjudicate the so-called general claims of both sides; and a contingent reference to the same or other mixed commission, to ascertain and determine the amount of damages, for indemnity, to be awarded in the cases examined by the first tribunal in the event of a decision upon the question of moral responsibility in favor of the United States.

No distinction as to principle between the tribunals seems to the United States to be necessary, and in every case the United States agree only to unrestricted arbitration. Convenience may require that the claims should be distributed between two tribunals, both of which, however, in the opinion of the United States, should

proceed upon the same principles and be clothed with the same powers.

The President will be gratified if this explanation shall conduce to remove any of the difficulties which have heretofore prevented the two governments from coming to the amicable and friendly understanding and arrangement which is so sincerely desired by both. Mr. Seward to Mr. Campbell.1

October 25, 1866. You are aware that a friendly and explicit arrangement exists between this government and the Emperor of France to the effect that he will withdraw his expeditionary military forces from Mexico in three parts, the first of which shall leave Mexico in November next, the second in March next, and the third in November, 1867, and that upon the evacuation being thus completed, the French government will immediately come upon the ground of non-intervention in regard to Mexico which is held by the United States.

Doubts have been entertained and expressed in some quarters upon the question whether the French government will faithfully execute this agreement. No such doubts have been entertained by the President, who has had repeated and even recent assurances that the complete evacuation of Mexico by the French will be consummated at the periods mentioned, or earlier if compatible with climatical, military, and other conditions.

There are grounds for supposing that two incidental questions have already engaged the attention of the French government, namely:

First. Whether it should not advise the departure of the Prince. Maximilian for Austria, to be made before the withdrawal of the French expedition.

Second. Whether it would not be consistent with the climatical, military, and other conditions before mentioned to withdraw the whole expeditionary force at once instead of retiring in three parts, and at different periods.

No formal communication, however, upon this subject has been made by the French Emperor to the government of the United States. When the subject has been incidentally mentioned, this Department, by direction of the President, has replied that the

1 U. S. Minister to Mexico.

United States await the execution of the agreement for evacuation by the French government at least according to its letter, while they would be gratified if that agreement could be executed with greater promptness and despatch than are stipulated.

Under these circumstances the President expects that within the next month (November) a portion, at least, of the French expeditionary forces will retire from Mexico, and thinks it not improbable that the whole expeditionary force may be withdrawn at or about the same time. Such an event cannot fail to produce a crisis of great political interest in the republic of Mexico. It is important that you be either within the territories of that republic, or in some other place near at hand, so as to assume the exercise of your functions as minister plenipotentiary of the United States to the republic of Mexico.

What may be the proceedings of the Prince Maximilian in the event of a partial or complete evacuation of Mexico, of course, cannot now be certainly foreseen. What may be the proceedings of Mr. Juarez, the President of the republic of Mexico, in the same event, cannot now be definitely anticipated.

We are aware of the existence of several political parties in Mexico other than those at the head of which are President Juarez and Prince Maximilian, who entertain conflicting views concerning the most expedient and proper mode of restoring peace, order, and civil government in that republic. We do not know what may be the proceedings of those parties in the event of the French evacuation.

Finally, it is impossible for us to foresee what may be the proceedings of the Mexican people in case of the happening of the events before alluded to. For these reasons it is impossible to give you specific directions for the conduct of your proceedings in the discharge of the high trust which the government of the United States has confided to you. Much must be left to your discretion, which is to be exercised according to the view you may take of political movements as they shall disclose themselves in the future. There are, however, some principles which, as we think, may be safely laid down in regard to the policy which the government of the United States will expect you to pursue. The first of these is, that as a representative of the United States you are accredited to the republican government of Mexico, of which Mr. Juarez is President.

« PreviousContinue »