neutrality laws, by its refraining for so long a time from seizing the rams at Liverpool, by its conduct in the affair of the Trent, and by its approval of the course of its colonial officers at various times; and that the individual members of the government, by their open and frequent expressions of sympathy with the insurgents, and of desires for their success, had exhibited an unfriendly feeling, which might affect their own course, and could not but affect the action of their subordinates; and that all this was a want of the "due diligence" in the observance of neutral duties which is required at once by the treaty and by international law.

What acts of sub

ment not responsible

It seemed to me that such facts, when proved, imbued with the character of culpable negligence many acts of subordinates in the British service for which, otherwise, the government ordinates a govern might not be held responsible; as, for instance, acts of the for collector of customs at Liverpool respecting the Florida and the Alabama; acts of the authorities at Nassau respecting the arming of the Florida at Green Bay, and subsequently respecting her supplies of coal; acts of the authorities at Bermuda respecting the Florida; and acts of the authorities at Melbourne respecting the Shenandoah. There were many such acts of subordinates which, taken individually and by themselves, would not form a just basis for holding culpable a government which was honestly and with vigilance striving to perform its duty as a neutral; but which, taken in connection with each other, and with the proofs of animus which we offered, establish culpability in the government itself.

Maintenance of intive bureaus on

(d.) That the insurgents established and maintained, unmolested throughout the insurrection, administrative bureaus on British soil, by means of which the several cruisers were dispatched from British ports, or were enabled to make them bases of hostile operations against the United States, and that the British government was cognizant of it.

surgent administraBritish soil a want

of due diligence.

(e.) That Great Britain, from the outset, denied, and to the last persisted in denying, that the departure of vessels like the British denial of Alabama and the Florida, under any circumstances, could liability.

be a breach of international duty; and had refused to exercise diligence to prevent such departure.

(f.) That in point of fact no such diligence had been exercised; and that, while there were particular facts as to each vessel, tending to fix responsibility upon Great Britain, these general indisputable facts were sufficient to carry responsibility for the acts of all the cruisers.

Submission of this

cists.

The treatment of this line of argument exhausted five chapters of the Case. These five chapters were printed in a memorandum form, and were submitted to several gentlemen, some of part of case to publiwhose names I may mention without violating confidence; only remarking, in justice to them, that they should not be held responsible for the views in this part of the Case, by reason of having read it in advance.

1. They were sent to President Woolsey, who made many valuable suggestions, most of which were adopted.

President Woolsey

Mr. Beach Law

2. Mr. William Beach Lawrence, the eminent publicist, permitted me to consult him, not only after these chapters were written, but also during their composition. I did not adopt his well- rence. known views respecting the Queen's proclamation and the unfriendliness of the British cabinet; nor do I suppose that he, knowing my convictions to be otherwise, had any idea that I would adopt them. I did, however, receive from him valuable hints, which improved the work.

3. Mr. E. R. Hoar, one of the members of the joint high commission, read these chapters at my request, and expressed his general approval. I think that he made several suggestions, and that all were adopted.

Mr. E. R. Hoar.

4. The veteran statesman and scholar, General Cushing, made several valuable contributions, all of which were embodied in the work.

General Cushing.

5. The different members of the Cabinet were consulted, and, so far as they made suggestions, their views were adopted. It is within your own knowledge that I received several valuable contributions or hints from you.

The Cabinet.

Last chapter not

It was not until I had thus received and acted on the advice of a wide circle of statesmen, jurists, and publicists, competent to criticise the work, of whose patriotic desire to have the interests of their country represented with dignity at Geneva no one could doubt, that the final chapter of the work was written. This chapter contained the formal statement of the claims submitted for adjudication under submitted for advice. the treaty. Among them were those which have since become known as "the indirect claims." To prevent misapprehension it should be said that this chapter was not sent out for criticism as the others had been. The statements were presented in the exact language of the protocol made by the two parties jointly for the purpose of defining the claims to be submitted to the tribunal. They were accompanied by references to the proofs respecting the individual claims, and the national claims for the pursuit of the cruisers; and with a request that the tribunal would estimate the national losses in the transfer of the commercial marine, and in the prolongation of the war. And, in order that the statement might be complete, some reasons were added why, should the tribunal be of opinion that Great Britain was responsible for the prolongation of the war, the prolongation should be dated from July, 1863.

No claim made for

a particular sum for tribunal asked to

indirect damages

estimate.

Delivery of the

The Case, as thus revised, was reprinted, and was, in accordance with the terms of the treaty, taken to Geneva, and there decase at Geneva. livered to the arbitrators and to the British agent in the official English, (and also in a French translation, made for the convenience of the arbitrators,) together with seven volumes of accompanying documents, correspondence and evidence.

the case tried.

The facts which were disclosed in the Case were, undoubtedly, such as The language of called for the reprobation of just-thinking persons; but these facts were told, so far as I was able to do so, in simple and temperate language, without harshness or violence. Nothing could have been further from my expectations than the outburst which followed.

Comments of the British press.

In about a fortnight after we left Geneva, it began to be said in the London newspapers that the good faith of the British government was called in question in the American Case, and soon the whole press, with the exception of the newspaper universally recognized as the leading journal, opened an attack upon the chapter on unfriendliness.

The Standard thought we had "sacrificed the consistency and dignity of our pleadings to satisfy popular prejudice at home." The Telegraph spoke of the "effrontery" with which the American demands were set forth, and said that "it must be borne in mind that General Grant seeks re-election." The Saturday Review spoke of the narrative as "perverted and spiteful," and "a malignant composition," and said that "if the Americans wish to express still more hostile feelings, they must

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.

quest for withdrawal

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.""

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.

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 require

counter cases.

ments 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.

This, and much of the subsequent work, could not have been comIndustry and zeal pleted in season had not the secretaries been willing, when of the secretaries. 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 government 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 Florida.

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, 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 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.

Supplemental

and made.

Decisions of the

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 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