sentations of facts, and ignorance both of law and history, which were, perhaps, ever crowded into the same space." He calls the part of their argument on which he was commenting, "an affront offered to this tribunal, by such an attempt to practice on our supposed credulity or ignorance,” and says that he "is at a loss to understand how counsel, familiar with English law, can take upon themselves to make statements of this sort.”

They need no vin

No opportunity of

charges.

I need not assume in the United States to vindicate the accuracy of statements or the soundness of reasonings which have the guarantee of the names of our distinguished counsel. The dication. charges are sanctioned by the chief justice alone. I have no hesitation in expressing my conviction that they would have been indignantly repudiated by each and all of his colleagues had fered to consider the the paper in which they are made been publicly read, or had its contents been made known at the time when the Tribunal ordered it to be recorded. This voluminous paper was, in fact, not read in the Tribunal; its author presented it in bulk without any statement respecting its character; no one had any reason to imagine its contents; and it was not made public until several days after the dissolution of the Tribunal and the separation of its members. As Sir Alexander Cockburn says of the charges of unfriendliness which were made in the American Case against members of Lord Palmerston's cabinet, "The world must judge between the accusers and accused."

He charges

the

The British arbitrator also charges that the Case of the United States "pours forth the pent-up venom of national and personal hate." He speaks of the "abuse" it "freely bestows," and case with abuse and complains of the "hostile and insulting tone thus offensively and unnecessarily adopted toward Great Britain, her statesmen, and her institutions."

hostility.

These charges appear to be founded upon the proof of the desire of various members of the British government for the success

The reason for

of the insurgents in the South, taken from the mouths of those charges. the speakers and presented for the consideration of the Tribunal, and upon the legitimate application which was made of that proof in the issue respecting "due diligence" which was pending before the tribunal at Geneva.

the American case

A complete vindication of the line of argument in the Case (if any were needed) could be drawn from Sir Alexander Cock- The justice of the burn's paper. "There can be no doubt," he says, "that line of argument in these speeches not only expressed the sentiments of the admitted. speakers, but may be taken to be the exponent of the sentiments generally entertained at that time;" and he adds, "though partiality does not necessarily lead to want of diligence, yet it is apt to do so, and in case of doubt would turn the scale." With such an admission as this, it is surprising that a man of the robust sense of the chief justice should have reproduced the rash imputations of the British press.

That I charged individual members of Lord Palmerston's cabinet with a partiality for the insurgents, is true; equally true is it that I supported the charge by proof from their own lips.

But I never questioned their right to entertain such partiality, or to express it in any manner that suited them. I never even assumed to criticise its justice before a tribunal created to try other issues. I confined myself strictly to the issues before that body, and I argued that this partiality of individual members of the government would be apt to lead to want of diligence, and in case of doubt would turn the scalea line of argument which is now admitted to be just.

Lord Russell justifies it.

If I argued that these acts of individual members of the British government were inconsistent with the "due diligence" required by the treaty, I did only what Lord Russell had said to Mr. Adams must be the inevitable result of an arbitration. "Have the British government acted with due diligence, or, in other words, with good faith and honesty?" was the question by which he said the liability of England was to be determined.

If I urged that, in any instance, the neutrality of Great Britain was not sincere, I did but pursue the line of argument which Lord Westbury had defended in advance in the House of Lords, and I did it nearly in his own language.

Lord Westbury justifies it.

I find no fault that Sir Alexander Cockburn does not agree with me, and with most of the world outside of England, as to the force of the evidence which was presented respecting these points. That is a subject on which persons may honestly differ. But I must be permitted to express some surprise that a lawyer of his deservedly great reputation should have made such a disagreement the cause of totally unfounded allegations against the Case of the United States and its author.

With the exception of these personal remarks, this long dissenting opinion (twice the length of the American case) adds little or nothing new to the arguments previously put forth by Great Britain in vindication of her course toward the United States. There are several material errors in its statements of facts, but I shall not follow its example of injustice in attributing them to design. All right-thinking persons will heartily echo the wish with which the paper closes, "that in the time to come no sense of past wrong unredressed will stand in the way of the friendly and harmonious relations which should subsist between two great and kindred nations."

Conclusion,

tion of the policy of

Thus, surrounded by difficulties, which at one time seemed insuperable, this great cause has reached its conclusion. Nations have, ere now, consented to adjust by arbitration questions of figures and The results of the questions of boundaries; but the world has had few, if any, tribunal a vindica earlier examples of the voluntary submission to arbitration arbitration. of a question in which a deep-seated conviction of injuries and wrongs which no possible award could compensate, animated a whole nation. It is out of such sentiments and feelings that wars come. The United States elected the path of peace. Confident of receiving justice, they laid the story of their wrongs before an impartial tribunal. This story, so grievous in its simple truthfulness, threatened for a time to break up the peaceful settlement which the parties had promised each other to make. Notwithstanding all obstacles, however, the great experiment has been carried to a successful end; and hereafter it cannot be denied that questions involving national sentiment may be decided by arbitration, as well as questions of figures.

The commander who had been permitted, by Providence, to guide some of the greatest military events in history, has thus, in civil life, assisted in presenting to the nations of the world the most conspicuous example of the settlement of international disputes by peaceful arbitration.

It is within my personal knowledge that your own counsels have also had a large share in shaping this great result.

I have, &c.,

Hon. HAMILTON FISH,

Secretary of State.

J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS.

II.-PROTOCOLS OF THE CONFERENCES OF THE ARBITRATORS.

PROTOCOL I.

Record of the proceedings of the tribunal of arbitration under the provisions of the treaty between the United States of America and Her Britannic Majesty, concluded on the 8th of May, A. D. 1871, at the first conference held at Geneva in Switzerland, on the fifteenth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one.

The conference was convened at the Hôtel de Ville at Geneva, in compliance with notices from Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis, agent of the United States, and Lord Tenterden, agent of Her Britannic Majesty, in the form following:

The undersigned having been appointed agent of the United States to attend the tribunal of arbitration about to be convened at Geneva under the provis

Organization and

ions of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain of the 8th delivery of cases. of May last, has the honor to acquaint Count Sclopis that it is proposed by the Government of the United States that the first meeting of the tribunal should be held at Geneva, if not inconvenient to the arbitrators, on the 15th instant.

J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS.

The arbitrators who were present and produced their respective powers, which were examined and found to be in good and due form, were: Charles Francis Adams, esquire, the arbitrator named by the President of the United States of America; the Right Honorable Sir Alexander Cockburn, the Lord Chief Justice of England, the arbitrator named by Her Britannic Majesty; his excellency Count Sclopis, the arbitrator named by His Majesty the King of Italy; Mr. Jacques Stampfli, the arbitrator named by the President of the Swiss Confederation, and his excellency the Baron d'Itajubá, the arbitrator named by His Majesty the Emperor of Brazil.

J. C. Bancroft Davis, Esquire, attended the conference as the agent of the United States; the Right Honorable Lord Tenterden attended as the agent of Her Britannic Majesty.

Mr. Adams proposed that Count Sclopis, as being the arbitrator named by the power first mentioned in the treaty after Great Britain and the United States, should preside over the labors of the tribunal.

The proposal was seconded by Sir Alexander Cockburn, and was unanimously adopted, and Count Sclopis, having expressed his acknowledgments, assumed the presidency.

On the proposal of Count Sclopis the tribunal of arbitration requested the arbitrator named by the President of the Swiss Confederation to recommend some suitable person to act as the secretary of the tribunal. The Swiss arbitrator named M. Alexandre Favrot as a suitable person, and M. Alexandre Favrot was thereupon appointed by the tribunal of arbitration to act as its secretary during the conferences, and entered upon the duties of that office.

Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis then presented in duplicate, to each of the arbitrators and to the agent of Great Britain, the printed case of the United

States, accompanied by the documents, official correspondence, and other evidence on which they rely.

Lord Tenterden in like manner presented to each of the arbitrators and to the agent of the United States the printed case of the government of Her Britannic Majesty, accompanied by the documents, official correspondence, and other evidence on which it relies.

The tribunal, of arbitration thereupon directed that the respective counter cases, additional documents, correspondence, and evidence called for or permitted by the fourth article of the treaty should be delivered to the secretary of the tribunal at the hall of the conference in the Hotel de Ville at Geneva, for the arbitrators and for the respective agents on or before the 15th day of April next.

The arbitrators further directed that either party desiring, under the provisions of the fourth article of the treaty, to extend the time for delivering the counter cases, documents, correspondence, and evidence, shall make application to them through the secretary, and that the secretary shall thereupon convene a conference at Geneva at an early day to suit the convenience of the respective arbitrators, and that the notice thereof shall be given to the agent of the other party.

The tribunal of arbitration proceeded to direct that applications by either party, under the provisions of the fourth article of the treaty, for copies of reports or documents specified or alluded to, and in the exclusive possession of the other party, shall be made to the agent of the other party with the same force and effect as if made to the tribunal of arbitration.

The tribunal of arbitration further directed that, should either party, in accordance with the provisions of the fourth article, call upon the other party, through the arbitration, to produce the originals or certified copies of any papers adduced as evidence, such application shall be made by written notice thereof to the secretary within thirty days after the delivery of the cases, and that thereupon the secretary shall transmit to the agent of the other party a copy of the request; and that it shall be the duty of the agent of the other party to deliver said originals or certified copies to the secretary, as soon as may be practicably convenient.

The arbitrators also agreed that for the purpose of deciding any question arising upon the foregoing rules, the presence of three of their number shall be sufficient.

The conference was adjourned to the following day, 16th of December, at 3 o'clock p m.

J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS.
TENTERDEN.
ALEX. FAVROT,

Secretary.

PROTOCOL II.

Record of the proceedings of the arbitration at the second conference held at Geneva in Switzerland on the 16th day of December, A. D. 1871.

The conference was held pursuant to adjournment. All the arbitrators Adjournment were present.

June 15.

to

Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis and Lord Tenterden attended the conference as agents of the United States and of Her Britannic Majesty, respectively.

The record of the proceedings of the conference held on the 15th in

stant was read and approved, and the secretary was directed to attest it. Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis and Lord Tenterden were requested also to sign this and all subsequent records as agents of their respective governments.

The tribunal of arbitration directed that when an adjournment of the conference should be entered, it should be entered as an adjournment until the 15th day of June next, subject to a prior call by the secretary as provided for in the proceedings at the first conference.

The tribunal then directed the secretary to make up the record of the proceedings at the second conference as far as completed, which was done, and the record was read and approved.

The tribunal of arbitration then adjourned to meet at Geneva, on the 15th day of June next, unless sooner convened by the secretary, in the manner provided in the proceedings at the first conference.

J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS.
TENTERDEN.

ALEX. FAVROT, Secrétaire.

PROTOCOL III.

Record of the proceedings of the tribunal of arbitration at the third conference held at Geneva, in Switzerland, on the 15th day of June, 1872.

The conference was held pursuant to adjournment. All the arbitrators were present.

Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis and Lord Tenterden attended the conference as agents of the United States and Her Britannic Majesty, respectively. Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis then delivered in duplicate to each of the arbitrators, and to Lord Tenterden, the agent of Her Britan- Delivery of Amernic Majesty, a printed argument, showing the points and can argument. referring to the evidence on which his Government relies.

British motion for adjournment.

Lord Tenterden then, on behalf of Her Britannic Majesty's government, presented the note, of which a copy is annexed, requesting an adjournment of the tribunal for the reasons therein stated, for such a period as might enable a supplementary convention to be concluded and ratified between the United States and Her Britannic Majesty.

Mr. Bancroft Davis stated that he could not say what would be the views of his Government on this motion until he should know the time for which the adjournment was asked.

Lord Tenterden stated that Her Britannic Majesty's government believed that, in order to afford time for the consideration of a supplementary convention by the Senate of the United States in their session commencing in December next, and for its subsequent consideration by Her Britannic Majesty's government, and for its ratification by the high contracting parties respectively, it would be requisite that the adjournment should be for a period of eight months, but that power might be reserved for the arbitrators to meet at any earlier date, upon being convened for that purpose by the secretary of the tribunal, upon the joint request, in writing, of the agents of the two governments.

Mr. Bancroft Davis said that his instructions did not yet enable him to state to the arbitrators the views of the Government of the United States on this motion in full. He said that he was in telegraphic communica