[Inclosure in No. 120.] Extract from Her Majesty's most gracious speech. MY LORDS AND GENTLEMEN: The time has now arrived when you may properly relinquish the performance of your arduous duties for a term of repose, which has been honorably earned by your devoted assiduity. I rejoice to inform you that the controversy which had arisen between my Government and the Government of the United States, in consequence of the presentation of the American claims for indirect losses under the Treaty of Washington, has been composed by a spontaneous declaration of the Arbitrators entirely consistent with the views which I announced to you at the opening of the session. In concurrence with your action on the part of the United Kingdom, the Parliament of Canada has passed the acts necessary to give effect to the Treaty within the Dominion. All the arrangements contemplated by that instrument are, therefore, now in progress, and I reflect with satisfaction that the subjects with which it has dealt no longer offer any impediment to a perfect concord between two kindred nations. * * * * No. 260.] No. 121. Mr. Fish to General Schenck. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, August 31, 1872. SIR: I have the pleasure to acknowledge your No. 290, inclosing two copies of the Queen's speech on the prorogation of the two Houses of Parliament, on the 10th instant. The telegram had enabled the public journals to bring to my notice this speech, or at least that part of it where Her Majesty is made to say that the declaration of the Arbitrators at Geneva is entirely consistent with the views which she announced to Parliament at the opening of the session, and I had observed what you comment upon, that Her Majesty in her speech at the opening of the session had said, "In the case so submitted on behalf of the United States, large claims have been included which are understood on my part not to be within the province of the Arbitrators." A very long correspondence ensued in which this Government contended, in effect, that all the claims presented were within the proper jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and that they could be disposed of only upon the judgment, or award, of the Arbitrators. At their fifth conference, on 19th June, Count Sclopis, as President of the Tribunal, on behalf of all the Arbitrators, made a statement, in the course of which he said, "The Arbitrators think it right to state that after the most careful perusal of all that has been urged on the part of the Government of the United States in respect of these claims," (referring to those which Her Majesty had thought were not within the province of the Tribunal,) "they have arrived, individually and collectively, at the conclusion that these claims do not constitute, upon the principles of international law applicable to such cases, good foundation for an award of compensation, or computation of damages between nations.” The President of the Tribunal, in behalf of all the Arbitrators, offi cially states that they had given "the most careful perusal " to "all that had been urged in respect of the claims"-this looks very much like taking cognizance of them;-that after such perusal they had not only individually but "collectively" arrived at a "conclusion;" the "collective" action of a Board must be official action. The Tribunal then, after taking cognizance of these claims, officially pronounces the opinion that, upon the principles of international law applicable to such cases, they do not constitute good foundation for an award of compensation or computation of damages between nations. The President could regard this only as a definitive expression-a judg ment of the Tribunal upon the question of public international law applicable to such cases, deciding that claims for remote or consequential injuries do not constitute good foundation for compensation in damages between nations. At the sixth conference (25 June) the Agent of the United States stated that the declaration thus "made by the Tribunal is accepted by the President of the United States as determinative of their judgment upon the important question of public law involved," and "that, consequently, the above-mentioned claims will not be further insisted upon before the Tribunal by the United States." They had been insisted upon before the Tribunal, but "will not be further insisted upon." The British Agent then said that he would inform his Government of the declaration made by the Arbitrators on the 19th, and of the statement now made by the Agent of the United States, and request their instructions. Thus advised that the President accepted the declaration of the Tribunal as determinative of "their judgment upon the important question of public law involved," and that the United States would not further insist upon these claims before the Tribunal, the British Agent, acting under instructions from his Government, assumed that the Arbitrators would, upon such statement, think fit now to declare that the said several claims are, and from henceforth will be, excluded from their consideration, and would embody such declaration in their Protocol of that day's proceedings. Upon this motion (as it would be called in a court of law) of the British Agent, Count Sclopis, the presiding Arbitrator, on behalf of all the Arbitrators, then entered final judgment, declaring "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 shall 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." The Protocols thus show that these claims, which Her Majesty was made to say to Parliament, on the 6th of February, were "understood, on her part, not to be within the province of the Arbitrators," were by them taken into consideration; that the Tribunal gave "the most careful perusal" to all that was urged on their behalf by the United States; that it pronounced its collective opinion upon their legal inadmissibility under the principles of international law as the foundation of an award of damages; that the United States declared their acceptance of this opinion as the judgment of the Tribunal upon the question of public law involved, and expressed their willingness not to further insist upon the claims before the Tribunal; that the Arbitrators, upon the suggestion of the British Agent, declared the claims now and from henceforth excluded from their consideration, and embodied in their Protocol the declaration requested by the British Agent. If the claims had not been within the consideration of the Tribunal, of what necessity the request to ask a formal order that they be "from henceforth wholly excluded?" If they were not within the province of the Arbitrators, why should the Arbitrators give them consideration, or give the most careful peru sal to what was urged in respect to them; or why should they express their individual and collective opinion with regard to them? If not within "the province of the Arbitrators," why should the British Government, through instructions to its Agent, and upon the statement of the Agent of the United States that they will not be further insisted upon before the Tribunal, ask for the entry of an order upon the Protocol that they be, "from henceforth, wholly excluded from all consideration?" Her Majesty's speeches to Parliament, although they may justify interpretation or comment by other Powers, do not require it in all cases. However inconsistent the declaration of the Arbitrators may in reality be with the view announced by Her Majesty to Parliament at the opening of the session, I do not see that there is any occasion to disturb the self-complacency of the expression with which the Ministry, through the Crown, assure the Parliament that antagonisms are agreements. The Arbitrators of Geneva have requested that secrecy be observed as to their transactions. I am not fully aware how far this request is intended to apply, but as I have quoted from their proceedings, you will, for the present at least, give no publicity to the citations or references I have made to their decisions further than as they may have reached you through other channels. I am, &c., HAMILTON FISH. No. 122. Sir E. Thornton to Mr. Fish. WASHINGTON, October 17, 1872. (Received October 17.) SIR: The Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva, in the matter of the differences between Her Majesty and the United States of America, on which it was appointed to adjudicate, having brought its labors to a close, and pronounced, on the 14th ultimo, its final award, Lord Gran ville has informed me that it has become his duty, in obedience to the Queen's commands, to instruct me to convey to the President Her Maj esty's acknowledgments for the care and attention which Mr. Adams, the Arbitrator appointed by the President, bestowed on the impor tant matter with which he was called upon to deal, and Her Majesty's high appreciation of the ability and indefatigable industry which that distinguished statesman displayed during the long-protracted inquiries and discussions in which he has been engaged. I am also instructed to submit to the President that he would be pleased to make known her Majesty's sentiments, as herein expressed, to Mr. Adams. I shall therefore feel much obliged to you if you will convey to the President the substance of the instructions which I have received, for the purpose of communicating which I shall do myself the honor of waiting upon him personally. I have, &c., EDWD. THORNTON. No. 123. Mr. Fish to Sir E. Thornton. WASHINGTON, October 22, 1872. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 17th instant, in which, after reference to the fact that the Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva, in the matter of differences between the United States of America and Her Majesty, had brought its labors to a close and had pronounced its final award, you inform me of instructions from your Government to convey to the President Her Majesty's acknowledgments for the care and attention which Mr. Adams, the Arbitrator appointed by the President, bestowed on the important matter with which he was called upon to deal, and Her Majesty's high appreciation of the ability and indefatigable industry which that distinguished statesman displayed during the long-protracted inquiries and discussions in which he had been engaged. Also that you are instructed to submit to the President that he would be pleased to make known Her Majesty's sentiments, as expressed in your note, to Mr. Adams. I have communicated the substance of your note to the President, who directs me to express the gratification with which he receives the intelligence of Her Majesty's appreciation of the manner in which Mr. Adams, whom he had named as one of the Arbitrators, had discharged the high duties intrusted to him. This expression which Her Majesty has been pleased to cause to be communicated will be made known to Mr. Adams immediately on his return to the United States, and will doubtless be appreciated by him. as a recognition alike grateful and honorable of his efforts to act on the High Tribunal with the dignity and impartiality becoming a Judge. I have, &c., No. 342.] HAMILTON FISH. No. 124. General Schenck to Mr. Fish.1 LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: With reference to my No. 341, I have the honor to inclose herewith full reports from the Times and the Standard of this morning of the proceedings in both Houses of Parliament last evening. I have, &c., [Inclosure.] ROBT. C. SCHENCK. Extract from the Debates in the House of Commons as reported in the Times" of Febru * * ary 7, 1873. Mr. GLADSTONE. Before parting with the portion of the speech of my right honorable friend to which I have referred, I may say I think he is in error when he states that the consent to what he terms an apology on our part-that is to say, to an express 1 This correspondence, which has taken place since the President's Message of December 2, is added to that then sent to Congress, with which it is connected historically. sion of regret for the fact of the escape of the Alabama irrespective of all questions of right or wrong connected with it-was a condition precedent to the negotiation with America. Mr. HORSMAN. What I said was to the Arbitration. Mr. GLADSTONE. I think it was not. If my right honorable friend refers to the papers, he will find that statement would not be borne out. Mr. HORSMAN. It occurred at Washington. Mr. GLADSTONE. Well, if it occurred at Washington it was not in the nature of a condition precedent. The basis of the whole proceeding was to arrive at an arbitration, and, therefore, the request for an explanation or expression of regret on our part was not a condition precedent to that proceeding. * No. 329.] No. 125. Mr. Fish to General Schenck. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 20, 1873. SIR: I have your No. 342 with the debate in Parliament on the Queen's speech. It may be not of much importance at this time, in an international point of view, to correct what seems to be an error on the part of Mr. Gladstone, when in his discussion with Mr. Horsman he is reported as saying that the expression of regret by Great Britain contained in the Treaty of Washington "was not in the nature of a condition precedent." The facts, I think, will scarce sustain Mr. Gladstone's denial, and, without a desire to provoke any discussion, it may be well to place on the archives of your legation some facts in connection with this question. The appointment of the Joint High Commission was preceded by informal negotiations between Sir John Rose and myself. The first interview between us took place on the 9th January, 1871, when Sir John introduced the subject by saying "he had been requested by the British Government, informally and unofficially," &c., "to ascertain what could be done for settling the pending questions between the two Governments, and that he was authorized to say that if it would be acceptable to the Government of the United States to refer all those subjects to a joint commission, framed something upon the model of the commission which made the treaty of Ghent, he could say that the British Government were prepared to send out such a commission on their part." At this interview I insisted, among other things, that Great Britain should, in some form, admit her liability, at least with respect to the Alabama. "and should couple the statement with an expression of regret for what had taken place to disturb the relations of the two countries; that less than this the United States ought not to be, and would not be, satisfied with." Several interviews took place between the 9th and 24th January. Sir John Rose submitted a paper, which was copied and returned to him. A counter paper was prepared, and on the 24th January it was read to Sir John, but, for reasons stated to him, was not formally given to him; it was, however, fully discussed, and he was furnished confidentially with a copy with the understanding that it was a crude paper, and did not represent my views, except so far as it agreed with the purport of the conversation then had. During the discussion with him on 24th January, I said, with regard to what the paper contained relating to the |