by the joint act of all the commissioners. I looked in vain in the treaty for any waiver or remission of those claims. On the contrary, I found an express provision that the United States were to have the judgment of the tribunal on all their claims growing out of the acts of the cruisers.

Preparation of case. Private claims classified as indirect.

The question was a practical one: for the claims for "enhanced rates. of insurance" were among those which had been classified! as "indirect" in the statement, which had received the approval of all the members of the joint high commission. Many claims of this character were presented at the Department of State, and a circular was issued, under the immediate direction of the Secretary of State, informing claimants that all claims growing out of the acts of the cruisers would be presented to the tribunal, leaving that body to determine on their merits.

Employment of Mr. Beaman,

It was impossible for me to prepare the Case and, at the same time, to direct in person the details of the arrangement of the evidence respecting the national and individual claims. Mr. Charles C. Beaman, jr., of New York, was employed to do the latter, under general directions from me, and did his work with His fidelity. admirable fidelity. Thus the evidence already collected,. together with important new materials from the archives of the several Departments, and the proof of the losses suffered by individual claimants, were arranged and stated in the manner marked out by the American members of the joint high commission, viz:

1. The evidence offered by individual claimants for the loss and deArrangement of the struction of property and for enhanced rates of insurance was analyzed and tabulated, and a full abstract of each case was prepared by the clerks.

evidence,

2. The national claims for the pursuit of the cruisers were stated and tabulated at the Navy Department, and were inserted by us exactly as received from that Department.

3. No proof was offered of the national losses by the transfer of the commercial marine, or by the prolongation of the war, but they were left to be estimated by the tribunal of arbitration, should Great Britain be found responsible for them.

Preparation of

The Case, which was reserved for my own work, was constructed on the following theories of fact and of law-theories which case-principles have received the sanction of the eminent counsel of the United States; which have been adhered to in all the arguments, and which have, to no small extent, been adopted by the arbitrators:

adopted.

(a) That the tribunal of arbitration was a judicial body, substituted The tribunal a ju by the parties to take the place of force, and empowered to try and determine issues which otherwise could be settled

dicial body.

(if at all) only by war.

Case to be stated frankly.

(b.) That the injuries of the United States should be stated, therefore,. with the fullness necessary to a determination in a court of law, and with the same frankness with which they would be stated in case of an appeal to force. I did not think that the United States could obtain full justice at the hands of the arbitrators if any appreciable part of their wrongs were left untold.

Unfriendly course

(c.) That the government of Great Britain, by its indiscreet haste in counselling the Queen's proclamation recognizing the inof Great Britain and Surgents as belligerents, by its preconcerted joint action due dili With France respecting the declarations of the congress of Paris, by its refusal to take steps for the amendment of its

British ministers.
Want of
gence

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 resa 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 gov ernment itself.

Maintenance of in tive 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 surgent administra dispatched from British ports, or were enabled to make them British soil a want bases of hostile operations against the United States, and that the British government was cognizant of it.

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.

The treatment of this line of argument exhausted five chapters of the Case. These five chapters were printed in a memorandum Submission of this form, and were submitted to several gentlemen, some of part of case to publiwhose names I may mention without violating confidence;

cists.

only remarking, in justice to them, that they should not be held respon sible 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.

by the joint act of all the commissioners. I looked in vain in the treaty for any waiver or remission of those claims. On the contrary, I found an express provision that the United States were to have the judgment of the tribunal on all their claims growing out of the acts of the cruisers.

Preparation of case.

sified as indirect.

وو

The question was a practical one: for the claims for "enhanced ratesof insurance were among those which had been classified! Private claims clas. as "indirect" in the statement, which had received the approval of all the members of the joint high commission. Many claims of this character were presented at the Department of State, and a circular was issued, under the immediate direction of the Secretary of State, informing claimants that all claims growing out of the acts of the cruisers would be presented to the tribunal, leaving that body to determine on their merits.

Employment of Mr. Beaman,

It was impossible for me to prepare the Case and, at the same time, to direct in person the details of the arrangement of the evidence respecting the national and individual claims. Mr. Charles C. Beaman, jr., of New York, was employed to do the latter, under general directions from me, and did his work with His fidelity. admirable fidelity. Thus the evidence already collected,. together with important new materials from the archives of the several Departments, and the proof of the losses suffered by individual claimants, were arranged and stated in the manner marked out by the American members of the joint high commission, viz:

1. The evidence offered by individual claimants for the loss and deArrangement of the struction of property and for enhanced rates of insurance was analyzed and tabulated, and a full abstract of each case was prepared by the clerks.

evidence.

2. The national claims for the pursuit of the cruisers were stated and tabulated at the Navy Department, and were inserted by us exactly as received from that Department.

3. No proof was offered of the national losses by the transfer of the commercial marine, or by the prolongation of the war, but they wereleft to be estimated by the tribunal of arbitration, should Great Britain be found responsible for them.

Preparation of

The Case, which was reserved for my own work, was constructed on the following theories of fact and of law-theories which case-principles have received the sanction of the eminent counsel of the United States; which have been adhered to in all the arguments, and which have, to no small extent, been adopted by the arbitrators:

adopted.

(a) That the tribunal of arbitration was a judicial body, substituted The tribunal a ju- by the parties to take the place of force, and empowered dicial body. to try and determine issues which otherwise could be settled (if at all) only by war.

Case to be stated frankly.

(b.) That the injuries of the United States should be stated, therefore,. with the fullness necessary to a determination in a court of law, and with the same frankness with which they would be stated in case of an appeal to force. I did not think that the United. States could obtain full justice at the hands of the arbitrators if any appreciable part of their wrongs were left untold.

Unfriendly course

(c.) That the government of Great Britain, by its indiscreet haste in counselling the Queen's proclamation recognizing the inSurgents as belligerents, by its preconcerted joint action with France respecting the declarations of the congress of Paris, by its refusal to take steps for the amendment of its

of Great Britain and

due dili

British ministers.
Want of
gence

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

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 rent not responsible 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 gov ernment itself.

Maintenance of in

surgent administra British soil a want

(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.

tive bureaus on

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 respon sible 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 a particular sum for that the tribunal would estimate the national losses in the tribunal asked to 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

indirect

estimate.

damages

Delivery of the case at Geneva.

The Case, as thus revised, was reprinted, and was, in accordance with the terms of the treaty, taken to Geneva, and there delivered 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

In about a fortnight after we left Geneva, it began to be said in the London newspapers that the good faith of the British British press. 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