SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE'S DECLARATION. No. 1. A passage from a speech of Sir Stafford Northcote, delivered on the 17th day of May, 1872, before the Exeter Chamber of Commerce, as published in the Pall Mall Gazette of May 18. "Two questions have been raised: one a personal question, as to what was the understanding between the Commissioners at the time the Treaty was negotiated; and, second, a general one as to the claims for consequential damages, or indirect claims. With regard to the personal question I will only say this-that we, the Commissioners, were distinctly responsible for having represented to the Government that we understood a promise to be given that these claims were not to be put forward by the United States. But if we are to maintain that position, we of course must be brought into painful relations, and perhaps painful questions, between ourselves and our American colleagues upon that Commission. No. 2. Extract from the London Times of May 20, 1872, giving a report of the speech of Sir Stafford Northcote at Exeter. SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE ON THE ALABAMA NEGOTIATIONS. We gave a brief telegraphic summary in the Times of Saturday of a speech delivered by Sir Stafford Northcote at Exeter. The right honorable gentleman spoke on several topics of interest, the chief of which was the question of the Alabama claims. We subjoin a fuller report of this portion of his speech. "I need not tell you," he said, "that this has been a year of great anxiety and of great trouble to us all connected with the questions raised under that Washington Treaty. And perhaps you will forgive my saying that to myself personally the time we have been going through has been of very considerable anxiety, [hear, hear;] not the less so because until within the last day or two I have felt myself in a position, and we who were the Commissioners last year have felt ourselves in a position in which it was our duty to hold our tongues. And though holding one's tongue is often very agreeable and very right, there are occasions on which it 38 A-II imposes and involves considerable sacrifice. But I think the country has generally appreciated the motives which have led to our silence. [Hear, hear.] We have felt that it was far better that we should submit even to misrepresentation, or at all events to suspicion, which, we think, we could have cleared away if we could speak, than that we should say anything which could by any possibility mar the settlement to which we are anxiously looking. [Hear, hear.] But the matter has now, this week, passed into a stage which places us in a somewhat different posi tion. It does not, indeed, absolve us from the necessity of great caution in speaking of anything of a personal character; but it does place us in a position in which we may speak with freedom in reference to the great international interests concerned. Why I say our position personally has been one of great delicacy and embarrassment is this: Two questions have been raised, one the personal question as to what was the understanding between the Commissioners at all events, and perhaps between the two Governments, at the time the Treaty was concluded; the other, as to the general merits of the question which has been raised with regard to what are called consequential damages, or the indirect claims. Now with regard to the personal question I will only say this-that we, the Commissioners, were distinctly responsible for haring represented to the Government that we understood a promise to be given that these claims were not to be put forward, and were not to be submitted to arbitration. That being so, we are, of course, brought into painful relations with, and painful questions arise between ourselves and our American colleagues upon that Commission. It would have been most unjustifiable if, while the matter was under discussion, we had allowed any desire to make out our own case in this matter to interfere with a great international settlement going on. Whether the time will ever come for speaking fully upon the matter, I do not know, and I comparatively little care. What I am anxious for is that a reasonable arrangement should be come to which shall secure to both countries-and I will go as far as to say to the world at large -the advantages which we promised ourselves in the conclusion of that Treaty. Now, while the question was one merely between the two Govern ments it was very difficult to treat it without entering on that personal question, but we now see it has passed beyond the two Governments. An arrangement has been provisionally come to, I think we may say, between the two Governments, which is now awaiting its sanction by the Senate of the United States, and which, if accepted by them, must come before the Parliament and the people of this country, with a view to its ratification by us also, and I therefore speak with some litle freedom, because I feel that I can do so without raising the other class of question to which I refer. Nothing can be more satisfactory, I think, than the attitude which the people-I speak of the great public of both countrieshave taken since the difficulty has arisen. There was very great satisfaction in America, and I believe that on the whole I may say there was great satisfaction in England also, when this Treaty was concluded last year. At all events, both countries believed that a settlement of the troublesome question had been arrived at; that principles were agreed upon that were likely to be of very great importance for the future. Suddenly, and most unexpectedly to the people of this country, and, as I am perfectly convinced, equally unexpectedly to the people of the United States, a difficulty was raised which seemed likely to overthrow the whole of the settlement. Nothing, I think, can have been more honorable to the public of both countries than the manner in which, in the face of that great disappointment, they have behaved. There has been no disposition to irritate, there has been no disposition. to embarrass the question; on the contrary, there has been an anxious desire shown on both sides to endeavor, if possible, to undo this knot and to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. And though I do not wish to take credit to the late Commission for what may not belong to them, still one cannot help thinking that the manner in which the negotiation was conducted on the part of our Government, and the manner in which it was conducted on the other side, has had something to do in bringing about a better feeling between the two countries than previously existed. I firmly believe that the natural irritation which pervaded a large proportion of the United States immediately after the terrible civil war through which they had passed was greatly allayed by the proceedings of last year, and even if, which I trust may not be the case, those arrangements should unhappily fall through, I believe that the disposition which has been shown toward a friendly settlement will not be without its fruits. But with regard to the prospects of a settlement, I wish only to say this-that I have great confidence that the spirit which has animated both peoples will animate the authorities also. [Hear, hear. The Treaty of last year was arrived at under circumstances of great difficulty, arising from the peculiar relation of the United States Senate to the Government; and those difficulties were enhanced by the fact that the Treaty embraced several distinct matters, and also by the consideration that the Senate had, on former occasions, rejected a Treaty for the settlement of the Alabama claims. All this made the negotiation extremely difficult and delicate. I am bound to say the spirit in which those difficulties were dealt with by the people, by the Government, and by the Senate of the United States was a spirit very encouraging, as if they were disposed to prefer great international considerations to the smaller and more personal considerations to which I have referred. And they dealt with this question in a broad and statesmanlike manner, which, I trust, augurs well for the future settlement of this question. It must be felt by us all that it is of the highest importance to the interests, not only of commerce, but of peace and tranquillity throughout the world, that these questions which have been raised should receive a satisfactory solution; that minor questions, such as national delicacy and national pride, even-although I am the last who would wish to see national honor in the least degree tainted or weakened-should not be allowed altogether to put out of our sight those very great, broad, international questions which are concerned in a settlement of this kind. And my firm belief is, whether we arrive at a settlement now, or whether this matter should be postponed, and it should be for the future to take it up again under happier auspices, that we have now arrived at a stage at which both countries are prepared to give proper weight to those great questions to which I have referred, and in which no petty considerations will be allowed to interfere with the settlement. [Hear, hear.] I do not speak-you would not expect me to speak-of the particular arrangement now proposed; but I do believe, if the matter is treated by the Senate in the same spirit as they dealt with our negotiations last year, we shall, before long, see such a settlement of it as will secure to the world those fruits which we had so earnestly hoped and so confidently believed we had secured by our negotiations of last year." [Applause.] No. 3. Extract from an instruction of Mr. Fish to General Schenck, June 3, 1872. No. 216.] SIR: * DEPARTMENT OF STATE, The communications which the British High Commissioners may have made to their Government, either pending the negotiation or since, can scarcely be urged with seriousness upon this Government for acceptance in the construction of the Treaty. One of those gentlemen is reported as saying, recently, "that we, the (British) Commissioners, were distinctly responsible for having represented to the Government that we (they) understood a promise to be given that these claims were not to be put forward, and were not to be submitted to arbitration." He does not say by whom, on what occasion, or in what manner, such promise was made. He involves all his colleagues in the representation made to their Government, that such promise had been made. But this seeking "aliunde," outside of the Treaty and of the Protocol, to establish a meaning or to explain its terms, has had the effect, which the honorable baronet who made the declaration anticipated, to raise a "personal question," and I cannot allow this reference made by Lord Granville to the information furnished to Her Majesty's Government by Her High Commissioners to pass without alluding to the representation which Sir Stafford Northcote (one of those Commissioners) says that the Commissioners are responsible for having made to their Government. In justice to myself and my colleagues on the American side of the Commission, I must take this occasion (the first that has presented itself since I have seen the speech of Sir Stafford Northcote) to say that no such promise as he states that the British Commissioners represented to their Government, as having been understood by them to be made by the American Commissioners, was in fact ever made. The official communications between the American and the British Commissioners (as you are aware) were all made by or to me as the first named of the American Commissioners. I never made and never heard of any such promise, or of anything resembling a promise on the subject referred to. None was ever made by me, formally or informally, officially or unofficially; and I feel entire confidence in making the assertion that none of my colleagues ever made any promise or any declaration or statement approaching to a promise on the subject. What may have been the understanding of Sir Stafford Northcote, or of his colleagues, I cannot undertake to say; but that the American Commissioners gave him or them any grounds to understand that such a promise was given as he says they represented to their Government as having been made, I am bound most respectfully but most emphatically to deny. I cannot conceive from what he has imagined it, as the only direct allusion to the three classes of claims (called the "indirect claims ") was that made on the part of the Ameri can Commissioners on the 8th day of March, and is set forth in the 36th Protocol in the words in which it was made. The British Government has, in the correspondence which has recently taken place, endeavored to construe the withholding of an estimate of those "indirect claims" in connection with a proposition on behalf of this Government, which was declined by the British Commis sioners, into their waiver. I have already discussed that question, and |