(b) Have considered that he had fulfilled his orders; for, instead of going to the southward, he re-appeared at Hong-Kong on the 9th March.1 At this time he probably received his further orders of the "21st November, 1863, to continue cruising until news of the destruction of the Alabama should reach her, then to return to the United States;" as in little over nine weeks (16th May) she was at Table Bay,2 and her passage down the China Sea being against the southwest monsoon, she must have proceeded immediately on receipt of these further orders; but whatever chance there may have been, had she proceeded in February and not then practically have given up the pursuit, in March she had none. Indeed, it is abundantly clear that the Wyoming did not, when she arrived at the Cape, regard herself as in pursuit of the Alabama, but as simply homeward bound; since otherwise she would have followed the Confederate cruiser to Europe, which was known to be her destination. On the 28th April Mr. Adams (writing from London) informed Mr. Seward that the Alabama was "reported at Cape Town and about to come to France,' ,"3 information which he doubtless received from the United States Consul at the Cape; who would also, without doubt, have imparted it to the commander of the Wyoming on his arrival there in May; but instead of following up the Alabama until he heard of her destruction, (which, at all events, might have given a color to this part of the claim, which covers the cost of the passage of the ship from her station, China, to the United States,) he, notwithstanding his positive orders to that effect, appears to have made the best of his way to the United States. It would thus seem that the period for which a claim could be made for this ship could not extend beyond the 9th February, 1864, when she practically abandoned the pursuit of the Alabama, and consequently the amount hypothetically admissible would stand thus: Amount considered by the Admiralty Committee to be hypothetically ad missible. Proportion now shown to be inadmissible.. Amount that may now be considered as hypothetically admissible............. $202,662 62 110,363 14 92, 299 48 There are two or three noticeable and curious features connected with this claim: 1. The United States Minister at Japan seems to have had no expectation that the Wyoming would have quitted the station when she did; her doing so caused him great embarrassment. 2. During the period for which claims are made against Great Britain, British men-of-war were assisting the Wyoming's consort (a sailing vessel) on the station, and receiving the thanks of the United States Government; for instance: When the Jamestown, the consort herself, was ashore near Yeddo in October, 1863; When the Encounter took an American consular prisoner from Japan to Shanghai in January, 1864; Her Majesty's steamer Perseus assisting the American bark Maryland, ashore in Japan, &c.5 3 Diplomatic Correspondence, 1864-25, Part I, p. 641. Diplomatic Correspondence, 1864-25, Part III, pp. 447, 493, 517. 5 Ibid., Part I, p. 310; Part II, p. 197; Part III, p. 592. CONCLUSIONS. From these premises the following results are deducible: (a.) That on the 1st December, 1862, only two suitable vessels were in the actual pursuit of the Alabama. (b.) That on the following December the two were reduced to one. (c.) That when she was sunk, there were only three, including the Kearsarge. (d.) That there were never more than three effective vessels in search of the Alabama at any one time. (e.) That during the months of February, March, and April, 1863, there was no effective vessel in pursuit. (f.) That the average number of United States vessels in pursuit, while the Alabama was pursuing her career, was less than two. (g.) That the United States Navy was increased from 400 to 600 vessels during this period; a considerable proportion of which were suitable vessels. (h.) That on the 1st December, 1862, no vessels were in pursuit of the Florida. (i.) That on the 7th December, 1863, no vessels were in pursuit of the Florida. (j.) That on the 7th October, 1864, when captured at Bahia, two vessels were in pursuit of her, exclusive of the Wachusset. (k.) That no United States cruiser was sent in special pursuit of the Georgia. (1.) Nor of the Shenandoah. (m.) That the claim for the conditional arbitration considered admissible (upon the hypothesis explained in the Admiralty Report on account of the Alabama should be accordingly further abated by .. (n.) On account of the Florida $536, 104 21 32, 736 29 26,651 00 (0.) On account of the Sumter, (see Connecticut, p. 83) . (p.) And the hypothetically admissible amounts so corrected would stand thus: For the four Confederates in Class I... For the Florida only $940, 460 24 891, 580 82 48, 879 42 P. S.-With reference to the note on page 351 as to the cruise of the Vanderbilt, it would appear from announcements in the New York Herald during the months of November and December, 1862, and January, 1863, that this vessel was at least 20 days in ports of the United States during those months. The following are the dates of her arrival and departure: Sailed from New York November 6, 1862; returned November 30. Sailed again December 11, and returned to Fortress Monroe January 17, 1863, from whence she did not sail again till after the 28th of the same month, when she left with the Weehawken monitor in tow. This suggests a still further abatement of $30,000 in the claim for this vessel, reducing the total amount, hypothetically considered admis sible for arbitration on account of the Alabama, to $861,580.82, and that for the four vessels Class I to $910,460.24. III. SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENTS OR ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE RESPECTIVE AGENTS OR COUNSEL SUBSEQUENTLY TO FILING THE ARGUMENTS ACCORDING TO THE CONTENTS. I. Statement of Sir Roundell Palmer, June 27th, 1872. II. Reply of the Counsel of the United States to the same. III. Argument of Sir Roundell Palmer on the points mentioned in the resolution of IV. Argument of Mr. Evarts in reply to the argument of Sir Roundell Palmer. VII. Argument of Sir Roundell Palmer on the question of the recruitment of men for VIII. Observations of Mr. Cushing concerning the enlistments for the Shenandoah, at IX. Argument of Sir Roundell Palmer as to the legal effect of the entry of the Flor- X. Reply of the Counsel of the United States to the argument of Sir Roundell Palmer on the special question of the legal effect of the entry of the Florida XI. Argument of Sir Roundell Palmer on the claim of the United States for interest. XII. Reply of the Counsel of the United States to the argument of Sir Roundell Palmer on the question of interest. XIII. Comparative Tables presented by the Agent of the United States on the 19th of August, 1872, in compliance with the request of the Tribunal. XIV. Tables presented by the Agent of Her Britannic Majesty on the 19th of August, 1872. in compliance with the request of the Tribunal. XV. Reply of the Agent of the United States to the new matter introduced by the Agent of Her Britannic Majesty on the call of the Tribunal for elucidation in respect to the Tables presented by the two Governments. XVI. A note on some observations presented by Mr. Bancroft Davis, on the 29th of |