American Commissioners, the imputation of ill-faith, which the charge implies, primarily attaches to the American Commissioners. I venture, therefore, to bring it to your notice, and shall be pleased to hear from you any statement of your recollection on the subject, or any suggestion on the matter. I am, my dear judge, very sincerely yours, Hon. SAMUEL NELSON, Cooperstown, New York. HAMILTON FISH. NOTE.-A similar letter was addressed to General Schenck, Judge Hoar, and Judge Williams, the other American Commissioners. The inclosure mentioned in the letter was the extract from the speech of Sir Stafford Northcote, taken from the Pall Mall Gazette-(No. 1, above.) No. 5. Letter of Judge Hoar in answer to Mr. Fish's letter of June 3. CONCORD, June 7, 1872. MY DEAR SIR: I received last evening your letter of the 3d instant, calling my attention to an extract from a speech of Sir Stafford Northcote before the Exeter Chamber of Commerce, which you inclose. He says that the British Commissioners represented to their Government that they understood a promise to be given that these claims (for consequential damages) were not to be put forward by the United States. I cannot, of course, undertake to say what any gentleman "understood;" nor does it appear by whom, or in what manner, or on what occasion Sir Stafford "understood" that the promise was given. I can only say that I never made any such promise, either individually or in conjunction with others; that no such promise was ever made in my hearing or with my knowledge; that I never thought or suspected that any such promise existed, or was understood by any one. On the contrary, I always thought and expected that those claims, though incapable from their nature of computation, and from their magnitude incapable of compensation, were to be submitted to the Tribunal of Arbitration, and urged as a reason why a gross sum should be awarded, which should be an ample and liberal compensation for our losses by captures and burnings, without going into petty details. ༄ Very respectfully and sincerely, yours, Hon. HAMILTON FISH. E. R. HOAR. No. 6. Letter of Judge Nelson in answer to Mr. Fish's letter of June 3. MY DEAR SIR: You call my attention to an "extract" from the speech of Sir Stafford Northcote before the Exeter Chamber of Commerce, in which he states that the British Commissioners understood a promise was given by the American Commissioners in the course of the negotiation of the Washington Treaty that consequential damages or indirect claims would not be put forth by the United States under that Treaty. The "extract" had attracted my attention at the time it first appeared, but I was inclined to regard it as the expression of his understanding, rather than the assertion of a fact. My very great respect for Sir Stafford, arising from our intercourse during the negotiations, inclined me to this conclusion. My recollection is distinct that no such promise was in fact made; and, further, that the only meeting of the Commissioners at which indirect injury or losses were mentioned was that of the 8th of March, the facts in respect to which are truly set forth in the Protocol. I have watched the issue of the difficulties that have arisen in the execution of the Treaty with the greatest interest and anxiety, and was very much relieved at what yesterday appeared to be a solution satisfactory to both parties, and which I see is to-day confirmed. Very truly, yours, Hon. HAMILTON FISH, S. NELSON. Secretary of State. No. 7. Letter of General Schenck in answer to Mr. Fish's letter of June 3. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, London, June 20, 1872. MY DEAR MR. FISH: I have your letter of the 3d instant, calling my attention to the statement made by Sir Stafford Northcote in a speech at Exeter last month. He took occasion then and there to declare that he and the other British Commissioners, in the negotiations which resulted in the Treaty of Washington, "understood a promise to be given" that what have been known as the indirect claims of the United States were not to be put forward or submitted to arbitration, and that they had so represented to their Governmént. I did not fail to note with surprise this statement of Sir Stafford when it was first announced, and still more the manner of it. That you may better understand this, I send you, from the Times, a fuller report of his remarks than is contained in the extract you have inclosed me from the Pall Mall Gazette. In reply to your appeal to me on the subject, I have no hesitation in saying distinctly and emphatically, as one of the American Commissioners, that if any promise of the kind mentioned by Sir Stafford Northcote was given, I had no knowledge of it whatever; nor do I believe that any such promise was made by my American colleagues of the Joint Commission, or by either of them, individually or collectively. What might have been the "understanding" of the British Commissioners it is impossible for me to say. Their high character as honorable gentlemen forbids my doubting for a moment the assertion of either of them when he states that such an impression existed in his mind. The American Commissioners can only answer for what they themselves may have said or done to give just or sufficient occasion for any understanding of that sort. I would comment further on the language employed by Sir Stafford in connection with his statement, and on what that language, as reported, seemed to imply; but a letter of his afterward addressed to Lord Derby, which it seems you could not have seen when you wrote to me, has been read in Parliament and published, giving quite a different view of the matter. It is not left now to be suspected that the British Commissioners were misled or deceived by some private communication made to them. In the letter to Lord Derby, a copy of which I send you herewith, Sir Stafford explains that the ground of his "understanding" was the statement made by the American Commissioners at the opening of the conference on the 8th of March, and which is set forth in the Protocol; but that he did not rely even upon that, or on anything outside of the Treaty itself, to support his conclusion. How this opinion, founded on the terms of the Treaty and the words of the Proctocol, which are open for interpretation to all the world, should "bring the British Commissioners into painful relations with their American colleagues," and cause "painful questions to arise between them," I do not comprehend. It is enough to know that the proof of the "promise" is claimed now to be derived inferentially from the language of the Treaty and Proctocol; and I am sure that differences of opinion as to the meaning to be assigned to those documents ought to be and can be discussed without any need or danger of making the controversy a "personal question." I am; my dear sir, very sincerely and truly yours, ROBT. C. SCHENCK. No. 8. Letter of Judge Williams in answer to Mr. Fish's letter of June 3. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 3d instant, inclosing an extract from an address by Sir Stafford Northcote in the Exeter Chamber of Commerce, in which he says, referring to the claim for consequential damages under the treaty of Washington: "We (the British Commissioners) understood a promise to be given that these claims were not to be put forward by the United States." I have no means of knowing what the British Commissioners understood upon that subject, for an understanding may be founded upon an inference or an argument; but if Sir Stafford Northcote means to say that any promise as to said claims, not found in the Treaty or Proctocol accompanying it, was given by the American Commissioners, I am prepared respectfully to controvert the assertion. I was never a party to any such promise, nor did I ever hear of anything of the kind, and the probabilities that it was made are not very strong, for the British Commissioners must have known that any promise modifying the Treaty would have no validity if not submitted to and approved by the Senate of the United States, which, of course, could not be the case with any such promise, of the existence of which there is no written evidence. I presume, if Sir Stafford Northcote used the language imputed to him, that he was betrayed into an inaccuracy of expression, and that he only intended to say the British Commissioners understood that the claim for consequential damages was not to be put forward, and not that any promise to that effect, outside of his construction of the Treaty and Protocol, was given by the American Commissioners. Yours, very truly, Hon. HAMILTON FISH, GEO. H. WILLIAMS. Secretary of State. No. 9. Extract from the 36th Protocol of the Conferences of the Joint High Com At the conference held on the 8th of March the American Commissioners stated that the people and Government of the United States felt that they had sustained a great wrong, and that great injuries and losses were inflicted upon their commerce and their material interests by the course and conduct of Great Britain during the recent rebellion in the United States; that what had occurred in Great Britain and her colonies during that period had given rise to feelings in the United States which the people of the United States did not desire to cherish toward Great Britain; that the history of the Alabama, and other cruisers, which had been fitted out, or armed, or equipped, or which had received augmentation of force in Great Britain, or in her colonies, and of the operations of those vessels, showed extensive direct losses in the capture and destruction of a large number of vessels, with their cargoes, and in the heavy national expenditures in the pursuit of the cruisers, and indirect injury in the transfer of a large part of the American commercial marine to the British flag, in the enhanced payments of insurance, in the prolongation of the war, and in the addition of a large sum to the cost of the war and the suppression of the rebellion, and also showed that Great Britain, by reason of failure in the proper observance of her duties as a neutral, had become justly liable for the acts of those cruisers and of their tenders; that the claims for the loss and destruction of private property which had thus far been presented amounted to about fourteen millions of dollars, without interest, which amount was liable to be greatly increased by claims which had not been presented; that the cost to which the Government had been put in the pursuit of cruisers could easily be ascertained by certificates of Government accounting officers; that in the hope of an amicable settlement, no estimate was made of the indirect losses, without prejudice, however, to the right to indemnification on their account in the event of no such settlement being made. The American Commissioners further stated that they hoped that the British Commissioners would be able to place upon record an expression of regret by Her Majesty's Government for the depredations committed by the vessels whose acts were now under discussion. They also proposed that the Joint High Commission should agree upon a sum which 39 A-II should be paid by Great Britain to the United States in satisfaction of all the claims and the interest thereon. The British Commissioners replied that Her Majesty's Government could not admit that Great Britain had failed to discharge toward the United States the duties imposed on her by the rules of international law, or that she was justly liable to make good to the United States the losses occasioned by the acts of the cruisers to which the American Commissioners had referred. They reminded the American Commissioners that several vessels, suspected of being designed to cruise against the United States, including two iron-clads, had been arrested or detained by the British Government, and that that Government had in some instances not confined itself to the discharge of international obligations, however widely construed, as, for instance, when it acquired, at a great cost to the country, the control of the Anglo-Chinese flotilla, which, it was apprehended, might be used against the United States. They added that although Great Britain had, from the beginning, disavowed any responsibility for the acts of the Alabama and the other vessels, she had already shown her willingness, for the sake of the maintenance of friendly relations with the United States, to adopt the principle of arbitration, provided that a fitting Arbitrator could be found, and that an agreement could be come to as to the points to which arbitration should apply. They would, therefore, abstain from replying in detail to the statement of the American Commissioners, in the hope that the necessity for entering upon a lengthened controversy might be obviated by the adoption of so fair a mode of settlement as that which they were instructed to propose; and they had now to repeat, on behalf of their Government, the offer of arbitration. The American Commissioners expressed their regret at this decision of the British Commissioners, and said further that they could not consent to submit the question of the liability of Her Majesty's Government to arbitration unless the principles which should govern the Arbitrator in the consideration of the facts could be first agreed upon. The British Commissioners replied that they had no authority to agree to a submission of these claims to an Arbitrator with instructions as to the principles which should govern him in the consideration of them. They said that they should be willing to consider what principles should be adopted for observance in future; but that they were of opinion that the best mode of conducting an arbitration was to submit the facts to the Arbitrator, and leave him free to decide upon them after hearing such arguments as might be necessary. The American Commissioners replied that they were willing to consider what principles should be laid down for observance in similar cases in future, with the understanding that any principles that should be agreed upon should be held to be applicable to the facts in respect to the Alabama claims. The British Commissioners replied that they could not admit that there had been any violation of existing principles of international law, and that their instructions did not authorize them to accede to a proposal for laying down rules for the guidance of the Arbitrator; but that they would make known to their Government the views of the American Commissioners on the subject. At the respective conferences on March 9, March 10, March 13, and March 14, the Joint High Commission considered the form of the declaration of principles or rules which the American Commissioners desired to see adopted for the instruction of the Arbitrators, and laid down for observance by two Governments in future. |