The tribunal considered the case of the Shenandoah.

Shenandoah: new

tables presented by

Count Sclopis having expressed some doubts concerning the chief point of this discussion, requested the tribunal to permit the counsel to afford further elucidation with regard to that point.

The tribunal decided to hear these explanations at the next conference.

In compliance with a request of the tribunal, Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis, as agent of the United States, and Lord Tenterden, as agent of Her Britannic Majesty, respectively, presented to the tribunal tables of figures relating to the losses for which compensation is claimed by the United States, with explanatory statements and observations.

The conference was adjourned until Wednesday, the 21st instant, at half-past 12 o'clock.

FREDERICK SCLOPIS.

J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS.
TENTERDEN.

ALEX. FAVROT, Secretary.

PROTOCOL XXIV.

Record of the proceedings of the tribunal of arbitration at the twenty-fourth conference, held at Geneva, in Switzerland, on the 21st of August, 1872.

Shenandoah:

ar.

on

The conference was held pursuant to adjournment. All the arbitrators and the agents of the two governments were present. The protocol of the last conference was read and approved, and was signed by the president and secretary of the tribu. Florida into Mobile. nal and the agents of the two governments.

gument ordered effect of the entry of

The tribunal continued the consideration of the case of the Shenandoah, by hearing explanations from Sir Roundell Palmer and Mr. C. Cushing.

At the close of his remarks, Mr. C. Cushing requested to be informed by the tribunal whether the questions outside of that of enlistment, on which the elucidation called for specially turned, remain open before the tribunal.

After deliberation, a majority of four to one declared the tribunal sufficiently enlightened.

Count Sclopis then concluded the statement of his opinions, which he had not completed at the meeting of the 19th instant.

Sir Alexander Cockburn, as one of the arbitrators, then proposed to the tribunal to require further elucidation by counsel upon the following question:

The legal effect, if any, of the fact that the Florida, after leaving the Bahamas, did, before entering on her employment as a vessel of war and taking any vessel of the United States, go into Mobile, a confederate port, and after a delay of four months, proceed from thence on her cruise against the shipping of the United States, under the circumstances appearing in the evidence.

The tribunal decided to adopt the proposal.

The conference was then adjourned until Friday, the 23d instant, at half-past 12 o'clock.

FREDERICK SCLOPIS.

J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS.
TENTERDEN.

ALEX. FAVROT, Secretary.

PROTOCOL XXV.

Record of the proceedings of the tribunal of arbitration at the twenty-fifth conference, held at Geneva, in Switzerland, on the 23d of August, 1872.

Lord Tenderden's statement about tables presented by

The conference was held pursuant to adjournment. All the arbitrators and the agents of the two governments were present. The protocol of the last conference was read and approved, Mr. Davis; argu; and was signed by the president and secretary of the tribsundry decisions. unal and the agents of the two governments.

ments to Florida;

Lord Tenterden, as agent of Her Britannic Majesty, read the following statement:

As agent of Her Britannic Majesty, I have the honor respectfully to represent to the tribunal that the tables of claims which were pro forma presented to the arbitrators by the agent of the United States on Monday, 19th instant, but of which I was only furnished with copies on the night of the 21st instant, contain new and additional claims of the following description.

1. a. Claims for wages of crews of captured vessels from time of capture.

b. Claims for loss of personal effects of officers and crews.

There is no evidence as to the number of the crews, nor as to the long and varying periods for which their wages are calculated, nor as to any such personal effects having been in fact lost.

In short, these claims are wholly conjectural in amount and unsupported by any evidence whatsover.

2. Additional claims for shares of vessels not claimed for up to the present time, e. g.: where an individual claimant has only claimed for four-fifths of the value of a vessel, an arbitrary claim is now advanced for the first time on the part of the United States Government for the value of the remaining fifth.

It is not alleged that the part owner who had not previously claimed has now given any authority for this claim to be advanced. The strong presumption indeed is that he may have already received the value of his share from English or other foreign insurance companies, with whom it was insured, and who are not entitled under the treaty to advance any claim.

3. Claims previously presented have been increased in amount without any ground appearing for such increase.

The total amount of these three classes of claims, which are now for the first time advanced on the part of the United States Government, appears, in round numbers, to be at least two millions of dollars.

Independently of the fact that these additional claims are unsupported by any evidence, it is my duty respectfully to submit to the tribunal that the additional statement of any new claims whatever, in this stage of the arbitration, for the purpose of influencing or affecting the judgment of the tribunal upon any matter within its authority, is contrary to the provisions of the treaty.

The treaty contemplates that the statements of facts and evidence, constituting the whole case of each party, should be brought before the tribunal within the times and in the manner specified in Articles 3, 4 and 5, subject only to such further statements or arguments as under Article 5 the arbitrators may think fit to require or permit for the elucidation of any point contained in, or arising out of, the documents previously put in by either party.

I have also to submit that the introduction of such additional claims is not authorized by the request made by the arbitrators.

This request was that comparative statements of the results in figures of the claims already made, as appearing in the papers previously presented, according to the views of the respective parties, should be prepared, with explanatory observations, and laid before the tribunal, and it could not have been intended to afford the opportunity for bringing forward new, or increasing former, claims.

Under these circumstances, I respectfully request the arbitrators to disallow, as unauthorized by them, and as contrary to the treaty, the tables containing such additional claims, presented by the agent of the United States, and the memorandum relating to them, without prejudice to his right to present other tables, accompanied by any explanatory observations, which shall be limited to the particular claims already set forth in the case and counter-case of the United States, and the appendices thereto. The tribunal decided to adjourn the consideration of this matter until the next conference.

Sir Roundell Palmer, as counsel of Her Britannic Majesty, then read the argument required by the tribunal on Sir Alexander Cockburn's

proposal, upon the question of law mentioned in Prococol XXIV, and Mr. Evarts, as counsel of the United States, replied to it.

On the proposal of Viscount d'Itajuba, one of the arbitrators, the tribunal decided to adjourn until the next conference the further discussion upon the Florida, and to proceed with the definitive vote on each vessel separately.

The tribunal then decided that it had to consider only such vessels with regard to which claims were presented in the case and counter-case of the United States; every other question being consequently understood as dismissed from consideration.

Count Sclopis, as president of the tribunal, having read the Article VII of the Treaty of Washington, asked the tribunal whether, as to the Sumter, Great Britain has, by any act or omission, failed to fulfill any of the duties set forth in the three rules mentioned in Article VI of the treaty, or recognized by the principles of international law, not inconsistent with such rules.

The tribunal unanimously replied "No."

The same question was asked as to the Nashville, and the tribunal unanimously replied "No."

The same question was renewed as to the Retribution.

Mr. Adams answered "Yes, for all the acts of this vessel."

Mr. Stampfli answered "Yes, as to the loss of the Emily Fisher."

Sir Alexander Cockburn, Viscount d'Itajuba, and Count Sclopis answered "No."

The same question was asked as to the Georgia, and the tribunal unanimously answered "No."

The same question was repeated as to the Tallahassee and Chickamauga, separately, and the tribunal unanimously answered "No" for each of these vessels.

The same question having been repeated as to the Alabama, the tribunal unanimously answered "Yes."

The same question was renewed as to the Shenandoah, and Mr. Adams, Mr. Stampfli, and Count Sclopis answered "Yes; but only for the acts committed by this vessel after her departure from Melbourne on the 18th of February, 1865," Viscount d'Itajuba and Sir Alexander Cockburn auswered "No."

The definitive vote on the Florida was adjourned until the next meeting.

The conference was then adjourned until Monday, the 26th instant, at half past 12 o'clock.

FREDERICK SCLOPIS.

J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS.
TENTERDEN.

ALEX. FAVROT, Secretary.

PROTOCOL XXVI.

Record of the proceedings of the tribunal of arbitration at the twenty-sixth conference held at Geneva in Switzerland, on 26th of August, 1872.

presents new tables

The conference was held pursuant to adjournment. All the arbitrators and the agents of the two governments were present. Lord Tenterde The protocol of the last conference was read and approved, and was signed by the president and secretary of the tribunal and the agents of the two governments.

sundry decisions. Lord Tenterden's re

Mr. Davis replies to

marks on the American tables.

Lord Tenterden, as agent of Her Britannic Majesty, delivered to the tribunal and the agent of the United States tables of figures relating to the claims contained in the tables presented on the part of the United States on the 19th instant.

The tribunal concluded the discussion of the question concerning the entrance of the Florida into Mobile, and her stay at that port, and proceeded to the definitive vote on this vessel.

Count Sclopis, as president of the tribunal, having asked, under the VII article of the treaty of Washington, whether, as to the Florida, Great Britain had, by any act or omission, failed to fulfil any of the duties set forth in the rules mentioned in Article VI of the treaty, or recognized by the principles of international law not inconsistent with such rules, Mr. Adams, Viscount d'Itajuba, M. Stampfli, and Count Sclopis answered "Yes," and Sir Alexander Cockburn answered "No." As a question of principle, the tribunal then unanimously declared that Great Britain should be considered as responsible for the tenders in the same degree as for the vessels to which they were attached.

The same question as had been put with regard to the Florida, was next asked by Count Sclopis as to the Tuscaloosa, a tender to the Alabama, and the tribunal unanimously answered "Yes."

The same question was asked separately as to the Clarence, the Tacony, and the Archer, as tenders to the Florida, and Mr. Adams, Mr. Stampfli, Viscount d'Itajuba, and Count Sclopis answered "Yes," for each of these vessels, and Sir Alexander Cockburn answered "No" for each of these vessels.

The tribunal then proceeded to the consideration of the representation made by the agent of Her Britannic Majesty, at the last confer

ence.

Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis, as agent of the United States, read the following statement in reply:

L'agent de sa Majesté britannique a présenté au tribunal un memorandum destiné à critiquer le résumé des indemnités demandées par les États-Unis, et dans lequel le tribunal est prié de remettre ce résumé à l'agent des États-Unis comme non avenu. L'agent des Etats-Unis soutient respectueusement que son résumé est parfaitement en règle et en tout conforme aux droits des États-Unis aussi bien qu'à la demande particulière du tribunal.

1. Les objections de l'agent de sa Majesté britannique portent sur les points suivants: a) Les gages des équipages des navires capturés par les vaisseaux armés des confédérés ;

b) Les pertes des personnes de ces équipages, tant officiers que matelots;

c) Des parties indivisées d'un navire qui ne paraissent pas expressément dans les a bleaux originaux ;

d) Augmentation prétendue du montant total des réclamations.

2. L'agent de sa Majesté britannique objecte aussi :

a) En matière de forme;

b) En matière de compétence.

Nous répondrons seriatim à toutes ces objections:

I. Quant à la forme, il est évident que les arbitres, pour faciliter leurs investigations, ont désiré avoir sous les yeux un abrégé comparatif de ce que les États-Unis réclament et de la critique de ces réclamations par l'Angleterre, critique portant sur les chiffres aussi bien que sur les chefs des réclamations. Ces résumés faits par les deux parties ne lient d'aucune manière les arbitres: ce sont tout simplement des renseignements propres à guider le tribunal à travers la masse de chiffres et de détails renfermés dans les mémoires et les pièces justificatives des deux gouvernements.

L'agent de sa Majesté britannique prétend que les États-Unis doivent calquer leur résumé sur le modèle du résumé de l'Angleterre, non-seulement quant à la forme, mais aussi quant au fond. C'est-à-dire que, s'il plaît à l'Angleterre d'omettre dans son résumé quelque chef de réclamations, l'Amérique doit aussi l'omettre. Ce serait une étrange table synoptique.

La raison requiert l'explication des différences qui existent entre les chiffres de chaque chef de réclamations. Mais elle requiert aussi l'explication des différences qui existent entre les chefs mêmes des réclamations. Sans cela, l'Angleterre n'aurait qu'à supprimer

dans son résumé le chef des assurances, ou celui des frets, ou celui d'un navire quelconque, pour soustraire ce chef à la connaissance des arbitres. Ce ne serait pas le moyen de renseigner le tribunal, mais pluôt celui de le tromper. Une telle idée a l'air d'une plaisanterie, et nullement d'une objection sérieuse au tableau des Etats-Unis.

Le tribunal examinera les résumés des deux gouvernements. À la lumière de ces résumés, le tribunal examinera tous les documents relatifs compris dans les mémoires et contre-mémoires des deux gouvernements. C'est le droit et c'est le devoir de chaque gouvernement de soumettre au tribunal les preuves respectives sans retranchement d'un côté et sans suppression de l'autre. Alors le tribunal jugera.

II. Quant à la compétence:

a) Le traité comprend toutes les réclamations des États-Unis qui sont désignées sous le nom générique de réclamations de l'Alabama.

b) Le tribunal, par son opinion préliminaire, a limité la généralité de ces mots, en écartant des réclamations certaines pertes nationales alléguées par les États-Unis.

Mais, à la suite de cette opinion, le tribunal reste saisi de la question de toutes les réclamations faites par les États-Unis dans l'intérêt des individus lésés, et comprises sous le nom générique de réclamations de l'Alabama.

Les pertes des officiers, et en général des équipages des navires capturés, ne sont pas moins valables que celles des armateurs et des assureurs. Le doute est impossible à cet égard.

c) Des réclamations pour les pertes personnelles des équipages des navires capturés sont formulées de la manière la plus explicite dans le mémoire des États-Unis, comme

suit:

"Réclamations pour dommages ou mauvais traitements infligés aux personnes, et qui ont été le résultat de la destruction des vaisseaux appartenant, aux deux classes précédentes.

"Il est impossible à présent pour les États-Unis de soumettre au tribunal un état détaillé des dommages ou mauvais traitements personnels qui sont résultés de la destruction de chaque classe de vaisseaux. Les officiers et l'équipage de chaque vaisseau avaient droit à la protection du drapeau américain; leurs réclamations doivent être incluses dans la somme totale que le tribunal peut allouer. D'après les éléments d'appréciation qui leur sont fournis, il ne sera pas difficile aux arbitres de connaître les noms et le tonnage des bâtiments détruits, de déterminer le nombre de ces hardis marins sans ressources qui ont été privés ainsi de leurs moyens de subsistence et de fixer la somme totale qui de ce chef devrait être placée dans les mains des États-Unis. Elle ne peut pas être inférieure à des centaines de mille dollars et elle peut s'élever à des millions. (Traduction française, pp. 377, 378.)

d) Nous prions les arbitres de lire ces extraits attentivement. Ils verront que les Etats-Unis ont présenté les réclamations de cette classe de la manière la plus claire et la plus positive, comme un chef capital des indemnités demandées à la Grande-Bretagne. Nous ajoutons que ce sont des réclamations réelles et méritées. L'incertitude du chiffre ne nuit pas à sa réclamation.

Nous aurons plus tard quelque chose à dire à ce sujet.

e) Les pertes d'effets, soit d'officiers, soit de matelots, sont expressément récitées dans plusieurs cas. Dans les autres, ces pertes sont estimées d'après le chiffre des pertes actuellement exprimées.

Quant aux gages et au chiffre des équipages, nous avons essayé de rassembler tous les renseignements possibles, et nos estimations sont fondées sur les faits développés dans les pièces justificatives.

Nous distinguons entre les gages des équipages des baleiniers et ceux des navires marchands proprement dits.

Pour les deux classes de navires les gages ont été perdus, ou par les armateurs qui les avaient payés, ou pour les équipages qui ne les avaient pas reçus.

Pour les baleiniers, la perte était plus sérieuse, parce que dans la plupart des cas le montant des gages se fixait, en tout ou en partie, selon les bénéfices, et les familles des matelots recevaient de l'armateur une partie notable de ces gages pendant le temps du voyage.

Dans ces cas, les matelots des baleiniers avaient été victimes des frais des six ou neuf premiers mois d'un voyage, en attendant les bénéfices qui devraient être reçus dans les trois mois à venir.

De deux choses l'une; pour indemniser ces gens, il faut leur allouer, ou des bénéfices en perspective, ou des gages se rapportant à ces bénéfices.

Pour les navires marchands, il peut se faire que la question des gages des matelots soit compliquée de la question des frets. En supposant que les indemnités demandées sous le chef de fret soient, comme nous le croyons, les pertes actuelles des armateurs dans cette relation, il s'ensuit que nous avons droit à être indemnisés pour les gages. Pour la plupart des navires, les Etats-Unis réclament sous le nom de gages la perte du temps des matelots, aussi bien que les frais de leur transport du lieu de capture aux lieux respectifs de leur résidence habituelle; et sous ce chef nous allouons des gages