United States as at all commensurate with the concessions asked from Great Britain.

At the conference on the 27th of March the proposed enlargement of the Canadian canals was further discussed. It was stated on the part of the British commissioners that the Canadian Government were now considering the expediency of enlarging the capacity of the canals on the river St. Lawrence, and had already provided for the enlargement of the Welland Canal, which would be undertaken without delay.

The subject of the export duty in New Brunswick on American lumber floated down the river St. John was proposed for consideration by the American commissioners.

At the conference on the 22d of April the British commissioners proposed that the navigation of Lake Michigan should be given in exchange for the navigation of the river St. Lawrence; and that her Majesty's Government should agree to urge upon the Dominion of Canada to give to the citizens of the United States the use of the Canadian canals on terms of equality with British subjects; and that the Government of the United States should agree to urge upon the several States to give to British subjects the use of the several State canals on terms of equality with citizens of the United States. They also proposed, as part of the arrangement, a reciprocal agreement as to transit and transshipment, and that the Government of Great Britain should urge upon New Brunswick not to impose export duties on the lumber floated down the river St. John for shipment to the United States.

The American commissioners repeated their views as to the navigation of the river St. Lawrence in its natural state.

The British commissioners replied that they could not admit the claims of American citizens to navigate the river St. Lawrence as of right; but that the British Government had no desire to exclude them from it. They, however, pointed out that there were certain rivers running through Alaska which should on like grounds be declared free and open to British subjects, in case the river St. Lawrence should be declared free.

The American commissioners replied that they were prepared to consider that question. They also assented to the arrangement as to the canals, which was proposed by the British commissioners, limiting it, as regarded American canals, to the canals connected with the navigation of the lakes or rivers traversed by or contiguous to the boundary-line between the British and American possessions. They likewise agreed to give the right of navigating Lake Michigan for a term of years. They desired, and it was agreed, that the transshipment arrangement should be made dependent upon the non-existence of discriminating tolls or regulations on the Canadian canals, and also upon the abolition of the New Brunswick export duty on American lumber intended for

the United States. It was also agreed that the right of carrying should be made dependent upon the non-imposition of export duties on either side on the goods of the other party passing in transit.

The discussion of these subjects was further continued at the conferences of the 24th, 25th, and 26th of April, and the treaty articles XXVI. to XXXIII. were agreed to at the conference on the 3d of May.

In the course of these discussions, the British commissioners called attention to the question of the survey of the boundary-line along the forty-ninth parallel, which still remained unexecuted from the Lake of the Woods to the Rocky Mountains, and to which reference had been made in the President's message.

The American commissioners stated that the survey was a matter for administrative action, and did not require to be dealt with by a treaty provision. The United States Government would be prepared to agree with the British Government for the appointment of a boundary-survey commission in the same manner as has been done in regard to the remainder of the boundary along the forty-ninth parallel, as soon as the legislative appropriations and other necessary arrangements could be made.

ARTICLES XXXIV. TO XLII.

At the conference on the 15th of March the British commissioners stated that it was proposed that day to take up the northwest waterboundary question; that the difference was one of long standing, which had more than once been the subject of negotiations between the two Governments, and that the negotiators had, in January, 1869, agreed upon a treaty. They then proposed that an arbitration of this question should be made upon the basis of the provisions of that treaty.

The American commissioners replied that, though no formal vote was actually taken upon it, it was well understood that that treaty had not been favorably regarded by the Senate. They declined the proposal of the British commissioners, and expressed their wish that an effort should be made to settle the question in the Joint High Commission.

The British commissioners assented to this, and presented the reasons which induced them to regard the Rosario Straits as the channel contemplated by the treaty of June 15, 1846.

The American commissioners replied, and presented the reasons which induced them to regard the Haro Channel as the channel contemplated by that treaty. They also produced, in support of their views, some original correspondence of Mr. Everett with his Government, which had not been alluded to in previous discussions of the question.

The British commissioners replied that they saw in that correspondence no reason to induce them to change the opinion which they had previously expressed. They then asked wheth

er the American commissioners had any further proposal to make.

The American commissioners replied that, in view of the position taken by the British commissioners, it appeared that the treaty of June 15, 1846, might have been made under a mutual misunderstanding, and would not have been made had each party understood at that time the construction which the other party puts upon the language whose interpretation is in dispute; they therefore proposed to abrogate the whole of that part of the treaty, and rearrange the boundary-line which was in dispute before that treaty was concluded.

The British commissioners replied that the proposal to abrogate a treaty was one of a serious character, and that they had no instructions which would enable them to entertain it; and, at the conference on the 20th of March, the British commissioners declined the proposal.

At the conference on the 19th of April, the British commissioners proposed to the American commissioners to adopt the Middle Channel (generally known as the Douglas Channel) as the channel through which the boundaryline should be run, with the understanding that all the channels through the Archipelago should be free and common to both parties.

The American commissioners declined to entertain that proposal. They proposed that the Joint High Commission should recognize the Haro Channel as the channel intended by the treaty of June 15, 1846, with a mutual agreement that no fortifications should be erected by either party to obstruct or command it, and with proper provisions as to any existing proprietary rights of British subjects in the island of San Juan.

The British commissioners declined this proposal, and stated that, being convinced of the justice of their view of the treaty, they could not abandon it except after a fair decision by an impartial arbitrator. They, therefore, renewed their proposal for a reference to arbitration, and hoped that it would be seriously considered.

The American commissioners replied that they had hoped that their last proposal would be accepted. As it had been declined, they would, should the other questions between the two Governments be satisfactorily adjusted, agree to a reference to arbitration to determine whether the line should run through the Haro Channel, or through the Rosario Straits, upon the condition that either Government should have the right to include in the evidence to be considered by the arbitrator such documents, official correspondence, and other official or public statements, bearing on the subject of the reference, as they may consider necessary to the support of their respective cases. This condition was agreed to.

The British commissioners proposed that the arbitrator should have the right to draw the boundary through an intermediate chan

nel. The American commissioners declined this proposal, stating that they desired a decision, not a compromise.

The British commissioners proposed that it should be declared to be the proper construction of the Treaty of 1846 that all the channels were to be open to navigation by both parties. The American commissioners stated that they did not so construe the Treaty of 1846, and, therefore could not assent to such a declaration.

The discussion of this subject was continued during this conference, and in the conference of the 22d of April the treaty articles XXXIV. to XLII. were agreed to.

The joint high commissioners approved this statement, and directed it to be entered on the protocol.

On May 6th, the high commissioners having met, Lord de Grey said that, as the Joint High Commission would not meet again after to-day, except for the purpose of signing the treaty, he desired on behalf of himself and his colleagues to express their high appreciation of the manner in which Mr. Fish and his Ameri can colleagues had, on their side, conducted the negotiations. It had been most gratifying to the British commissioners to be associated with colleagues who were animated with the same sincere desire as themselves to bring about a settlement, equally honorable and just to both countries, of the various questions of which it had been their duty to treat, and the British commissioners would always retain a grateful recollection of the fair and friendly spirit which the American commissioners had displayed.

Mr. Fish, in behalf of the American commissioners, said that they were gratefully sensible of the friendly words expressed by Lord de Grey, and of the kind spirit which had prompted them. From the date of the first conference the American commissioners had been impressed by the earnestness of desire manifested by the British commissioners to reach a settlement worthy of the two powers who had committed to this Joint High Commission the treatment of various questions of peculiar interest, complexity, and delicacy. His colleagues and he could never cease to ap preciate the generous spirit and the open and friendly manner in which the British commis sioners had met and discussed the several questions that had led to the conclusion of a treaty which, it was hoped, would receive the approval of the people of both countries, and would prove the foundation of a cordial and friendly understanding between them for all time to come.

Mr. Fish further said that he was sure every

member of the Joint High Commission would desire to record his appreciation of the ability, the zeal, and the unceasing labor which the joint protocolists had exhibited in the discharge of their arduous and responsible duties. and that he knew that he only gave expression to the feelings of the commissioners in saying

that Lord Tenterden and Mr. Bancroft Davis were entitled to, and were requested to accept, the thanks of the Joint High Commission for their valuable services, and the great assistance which they had rendered with unvarying obligingness to the commission.

Lord de Grey replied, on behalf of the British commissioners, that he and his colleagues most cordially concurred in the proposal made by Mr. Fish that the thanks of the Joint High Commission should be tendered to Mr. Bancroft Davis and Lord Tenterden for their valuable services as joint protocolists. The British commissioners were also quite as sensible as their American colleagues of the great advantage which the commission had derived from the assistance which those gentlemen had given them in the conduct of the important negotiations in which they had been engaged. Monday, the 8th of May, was appointed for the signatures of the treaty.

On May 25th, Secretary Fish writes to Mr. Schenck, the American minister at London, that, "the Senate having advised and consented thereto, the President has ratified the treaty between the United States and Great Britain for the settlement of pending questions between the two countries, signed at Washington on the 8th instant, and I now transmit to you by the hands of Mr. Bancroft C. Davis, of Massachusetts, the American ratification to be exchanged against that of her Britannic Majesty, with full power to enable you to effect that object."

On June 22d Mr. Schenck writes from London to Secretary Fish as follows:

I have the satisfaction to inform you that, having produced and exchanged powers from our respective Governments, the formal exchange of ratifications took place, as agreed between Lord Granville and myself, on Saturday, the 17th, at a quarter-past two o'clock, P. M., at the Foreign Office. I note the exact time and place as marking an interesting and momentous point in the history of the two countries and their Governments. Besides Lord Granville and myself, there were present and assisting, on our part, Mr. Moran, secretary of legation, and General Woodhall, assistant-secretary; and on the other side, Lord Tenterden and Mr. Bergne, of the Foreign Office. No particular ceremony was observed beyond the signing of the certificates of our action. There was, however, an interchange of hearty mutual congratulation that we had completed an act which has not only removed all present serious differences, but established, we hope, lasting peace and better understanding between the two countries.

Steps were immediately taken for the appointment of the arbitrators. The following is a copy of the joint note sent by the two Governments to the Emperor of Brazil, and mutatis mutandis to the King of Italy, and the President of the Swiss Confederation:

Differences having arisen between the Government of the United States and the Government of her Britannic Majesty, growing out of the acts committed by the several vessels which have given rise to the claims generally known as the "Alabama claims," the high contracting parties, in order to remove and adjust all complaints and claims on the part of the United States, and to provide for the

speedy settlement of such claims, have agreed, by the first article of the treaty signed at Washington on the said claims growing out of acts committed by May 8, 1871, of which a copy is annexed, to refer all the aforesaid vessels, and generally known as the "Alabama claims," to a tribunal of arbitration, to be composed of five arbitrators, to be appointed in the following manner, that is to say: One shall be named by the President of the United States; one shall be named by her Britannic Majesty; his Majesty the Emperor of Brazil shall be requested to name one; his Majesty the King of Italy shall be requested to name one; the President of the Swiss Confederation shall be requested to name one.

The high contracting parties, therefore, reposing entire confidence in the spirit of justice and impartiality which distinguishes his Majesty the Emperor of Brazil, the common friend of the two states, have agreed, in pursuance of the said treaty, to address themselves severally to his Majesty, and to request his Majesty to be pleased to appoint an arbitrator, to form, with the arbitrators to be named by the other powers above named, the tribunal of arbitration, to which reference agreed upon in the first article of the treaty shall be made.

The undersigned, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States, having received the orders of his Government to communicate to his Majesty the Emperor of Brazil the agreement thus made on the part of the United States, has been President of the United States that his Majesty the further charged to express the earnest wish of the Emperor will be willing to afford his good offices on the present occasion, and will be pleased to appoint an arbitrator to act in the premises.

[Minister of Foreign Affairs] to lay this communicaThe undersigned has the honor to request the tion before his Majesty, and to be pleased to make known to the undersigned his Majesty's determination with regard to the request therein set forth.

In August, Mr. Charles Francis Adams, of Massachusetts, was appointed arbitrator on behalf of the United States, with Mr. James S. Frazer, late of the Supreme Court of Indiana, as commissioner of claims. (For further proceedings, see GREAT BRITAIN.)

Charles Francis Adams is the only surviving son of John Quincy Adams, ex-President of the United States of America, and was born in Boston, August 18, 1807. While still an infant, he was taken by his father to St. Petersburg, where, with unusual precocity, he, prior to his sixth birthday, had acquired a practical knowledge of the Russian, German, and French languages. In the year 1815 (a period when the "Grand Tour" was a work of considerable danger and difficulty, from the disturbed state of Europe generally), he accompanied his father to Paris, and thence to England, where he became an inmate of one of its public schools. At that time the prejudice of the English against Americans and American institutions pervaded every section of English society, the popular feeling running so high as to amount almost to persecution of the few American citizens who visited its shores. This was more especially observable in the educational institutions, and young Adams found it necessary to vindicate the honor and reputation of his country by repeated pugilistic encounters, in which his patriotic feeling and physical prowess uniformly procured for him the victory. His father, who had for some time been engaged

on a special mission to the British court, as the representative of the United States, having accomplished the object for which he was sent, returned to America, accompanied by his son, in the year 1817, when he resumed his studies in the Latin college at Boston, and subsequently at Harvard University, where he graduated in 1825. His father was soon afterward elevated to the presidential chair, and Charles Francis removed to Washington, where he received his first lessons in diplomacy through the medium of an appointment on the executive staff. Eventually deciding upon the legal profession as his future scene of action, he entered the office of Daniel Webster, in New Hampshire, where he practised until he was admitted to the Boston bar in 1828, but he has never since been actively engaged as a member of the legal fraternity. In 1829 he became connected by marriage with one of the most influential families of the State, espousing the youngest daughter of Peter C. Brooks, an eminent merchant of Boston, thereby becoming a brother-in-law of Edward Everett. Shortly afterward he entered the Massachusetts Legislature as the representative of Boston, which position he held for upward of two years, and was subsequently transferred to the Senate. His rigid legal training and his practical knowledge of State affairs rapidly paved the way to still more honorable and responsible positions. Having conscientious objections to the policy of the Whig party (with whom he had hitherto been associated), he separated from them, and assumed an independent position in the political arena. His sincerity, active usefulness, and keen intelligence had, however, so forcibly commended him to the good opinion of his fellow-citizens, that in the year 1848 he was selected by the Free-soil party as their candidate for the vice-presidency on the Van Buren ticket. In December, 1859, he was sent to Congress, representing the third Massachusetts district; was appointed member on the most important committees, and was looked up to with respect and confidence by all with whom he was associated. The perilous condition of the country, the virulence of party politics, and the imminence of civil war at this time, brought Mr. Adams at once to the front as the champion of the Republican party; and the memorable harangue which he addressed to the House on May 31, 1860, in vindication of their policy, placed him in the foremost rank of American statesmen, and marked out for him a career which may probably find its climax in the presidential chair. In the interval between the first and second session of the Thirty-sixth Congress, he, in company with Mr. Seward, made a tour of the Northwestern States, strenuously supporting Lincoln's candidature both by his speeches and personal influence, and, when, on the opening of the session, a special committee of delegates from each State was appointed to take into consideration the state of the country, Mr. Adams was unanimously chosen as the

representative for Massachusetts. The result of that convention of delegates was the adop tion of a series of resolutions denying the right or power of the free States, individually, or of the United States Government, to interfere with the internal economy of the slave States, or to adopt any coercive or prohibitory measures toward them; which resolutions were accompanied by the draft of a bill for the admission of New Mexico into the Federal Union, leaving the question of the admission or exclusion of slavery to be decided by the Mexican citizens alone; and also amendments to the Constitution embodying the principles contained in the resolutions, so framed that, when passed, they could at once be acted upon, and relieve the country from those dilemmas into which it had been drawn by this vexata quæstio. The amendments were unanimously adopted, but the bill for the admission of New Mexico was rejected. In all these documents, the statesmanship and legal acumen of Mr. Adams were distinctly traceable, whose persistent and courageous advocacy of the non-intervention policy, forbidding the interference of Congress with the local government of indivi dual States (especially in reference to the sla very question), and his reasons for pursuing that course (as given in a speech delivered January 31, 1861), are now a matter of history. Shortly afterward (May, 1861) he succeeded Mr. Dallas as minister to England, and for seven years maintained with unswerving fidelity the honor of his country, and administered the arduous and delicate duties of his high office with such equity and moderation as to secure the cordial approval and hearty encomiums of both British and American citizens. His familiarity with all the intricacies of international law, his concili atory and yet firm method of treatment of every matter brought under discussion, his high character as a statesman, his genial social qualities, and his inflexible honesty of purpose, won for him the esteem and personal regard of every man who had been brought into official relations with him, or had had an op portunity of watching his conduct. From the year 1868 to 1871 he lived in comparative re tirement, declining all active participation in administrative affairs; but, on the ratification by England and America of the Treaty of Washington, he was appointed by the President as arbitrator for America for the settlement of the claims under that treaty; and departed for Geneva, to fulfil the duties devolving upon him, in November, 1871. His principal contributions to literature are: "A Discourse on American Neutrality," delivered before the New York Historical Society, and a number of contributions to the North American Reviet and the Christian Examiner. He also edited the collected writings and life of his grandfather, published in ten volumes; and for four years edited a daily paper in Boston. It is his intention, we believe, to collect and publish his father's biography and literary productions.