House Documents, Otherwise Publ. as Executive Documents

Earl Granville remarks that certain por-
tions of Mr. Fish's statement, as con-
tained in his telegram of the day previous,
to General Schenck, were inexplicable
to him. General Schenck stated that the

Incloses copies of recent correspondence

with Earl Granville already telegraphed. 535

Transmits the text of a note from Earl

Granville, of the 30th, to the effect that

Her Majesty's Government have stated

their objections to the words proposed

by the Senate, but do not pretend that

the words suggested by themselves

were incapable of improvement. Earl

Granville submits to General Schenck a

draught article, the substance of which

is that the President will not make any

claim on the part of the United States

before the Tribunal of Arbitration in

respect of the several classes of indirect

losses therein enumerated.

Informing him that the time is too limited

for the Senate to consider the important

changes proposed by the British Govern-

ment to the terms of the supplemental

article. Mr. Fish has suggested to Mr.

Thornton that they sign the article as

recommended by the Senate, that the

Arbitration may proceed....

Sending draught of a convention for ad-

journing presentation of argument to the

Transmits text of note from Earl Granville

in reply to telegram from Mr. Fish to

General Schenck of 31st of May, to the

effect that Her Majesty's Government

hold that by the article adopted by the

Senate cases of bad faith and willful

misconduct are brought within the scope

of the proposed agreement, which deals

with pecuniary compensation. Earl

Granville is informed by Sir E. Thornton

that Mr. Fish thinks the article adopted

by the Senate capable of improvement.

British Government declines to sign a

Treaty not in conformity with their

views. Are willing to sign a Treaty or

concur in joint application to Tribunal to

adjourn proceedings of Arbitration..... 545

Relative to cases of bad faith or willful

misconduct held by Great Britain to be

within the scope of the Senate article.. 546

British Government holds that after the

Arbitrators have received the arguments

from the Agents on the 15th, they may

adjourn for a time

United States Government concurs in opin-

ion that the Arbitrators have power to

adjourn. If arguments on both sides be

put in on 15th, and Great Britain move

for adjournment, this Government will

concur

Her Majesty's Government of opinion that

Arbitrators must meet on 15th, but not

necessary for Agents to present argu-

ments at that time...........

Reply to Earl Granville's instruction to

Sir E. Thornton, of the 13th ultimo. Re-

fers to Earl Russell's dispatch of March

27, 1863, to Lord Lyons, as proof that

Mr. Adams, in a conversation with Earl

Russell therein alluded to, referred to

the "Alabama" and other cruisers as

among the causes tending to produce

the exasperation which might lead to a

war "with a view to aid the confederate

cause;" and not to "blockade-running."

Shows that the British Government must

have understood that the United States

insisted upon indemnity for indirect in-

juries anterior to the meeting of the Joint

High Commission, and that their present-

ation was not a surprise to the British

High Commissioners; also, that the

British Government entered upon the

negotiation of the Alabama question

with a knowledge of the existence of the

claims for indirect losses. Alludes to

recent speech of Sir Stafford Northcote,

and denies that promise was given by

the American High Commissioners that

the indirect claims were not to be put

The Government of the United States dif-

fers from opinion of Earl Granville with

regard to presentation of arguments on

the 15th. If an adjournment is contem-

plated by Great Britain it should be un-

derstood that this Government cannot

negotiate on a proposition which involves

the idea that it is guilty of willful viola-

tion of its international duties....

Statement read by Lord Granville in the

House of Lords as to the publication of

the papers submitted to the Senate..... 556

Opposition members in Parliament have

fears that the last clause of the article is

not explicit enough to prevent indirect

claims from being again brought forward. 557

This Government deals with the British

Government, not with opposition mem-

bers of Parliament. If the British Gov-

ernment adopts the unworthy suspicion,

or suggests that this Government will

not in good faith act upon the agreement

contained therein, all further negotiation

must cease at once. Any change in the

article as agreed to by the Senate would

involve discussion and lead to the defeat

of the Treaty......

Page.

The British Government do not adopt the

fears and suspicions of others with regard

to the last clause of the proposed article,

but defend it as sufficient. Transmits

text of three notes from Earl Granville,

first of which relates to alterations in the

draught article proposed by the Senate;

the second relates to the necessity of

presenting the written or printed argu-

ments on the 15th of June; and the third

to an application to be made to the Ar-

bitrators to adjourn on the 15th, without

the presentation of the argument of

either Government, or to conclude a new

arrangement with the United States for

the enlargement of the time......

Informed Earl Granville that it was useless

to expect that any change can be made

in the article as agreed to by the Senate.

Incloses copy of his note to Earl Gran-

ville on the subject......

The criticism by the British Government

on the language of the Senate amend-

ment is regarded as hypercritical and

strained. The Senate and people of the

United States impatient over the delays.

This Government cannot adopt the argu-

ment of Earl Granville with regard to

the putting in of arguments by both

Governments on the 15th. United

States think the Treaty requires it to be

Transmits substance of note of even date

from Earl Granville respecting the sub-

stitution of certain words in the Senate

article with regard to indirect losses.... 561

Reference to any conversation with Sir E.

Thornton unjustified. Have invariably

told him that it was useless to discuss

the amendments to the proposed article. 561

Transmits substance of note from Earl

Granville of even date, with sketch of

draught note in presenting summary.

Earl Granville says that if the Treaty is

to be maintained an adjournment from

the 15th instant has become absolutely

necessary. He proposes that joint appli-

cation be made to the Tribunal for an

adjournment of eight months. If the

United States concur in making the ap-

plication the agent of Her Majesty's Gov-

ernment will deliver to the arbitrators

the summary of their argument, accom-

panied by a declaration that it is the in-

tention of his Government to cancel the

appointment of the British Arbitrator,

and to withdraw from the Arbitration

at the close of the term fixed for the ad-

journment, unless the difference existing

between the two Governments in regard

to indirect losses shall have been removed 561

Transmit copies of correspondence with
Earl Granville, (already telegraphed)... 562

« iepriekšējā Turpināt »

Grāmatas

House Documents, Otherwise Publ. as Executive Documents ..., 1. sējums,3. daļa