TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Page.

Remainder of papers accompanying the Counter Case of the United States.....

1

Counter Case of her Britannic Majesty's Government..

I. Introductory statement.

197

203

II. Argument of the United States on neutral duties.

III. Precedents appealed to by the United States..

207

232

IV. Various complaints of the United States against Great Britain. Traffic in

munitions of war.

264

V. The Sumter and Nashville

290

VI. The Florida and Alabama

297

VII. The Georgia and Shenandoah

321

VIII. The Clarence, Tacony, Archer, Tuscaloosa, Tallahassee, Chickamauga, and

Retribution

339

346

IX. Reception of the confederate cruisers in British ports.

X. Conclusions..

369

INSTRUCTIONS TO THE AGENT AND COUNSEL, AND PROCEEDINGS AT GENEVA IN DECEMBER,

1871, AND APRIL, 1872.

Arrival at Geneva. Meeting of the Arbitra-

tors. Count Sclopis chosen to preside

over the Tribunal. Mr. Stämpfli, on re-

quest of the Tribunal, names Mr. Favrot

as secretary. Cases presented. Trans-

mits copies of notes which accompanied

the same

Meeting of the Arbitrators. Exchange of

Counter Cases. British Counter Case,

accompanied by a note from Lord Tenter-

den to the Arbitrators. Reply of Mr.

Davis thereto. Telegram from Mr. Fish

received relative to claims filed in the

Department of State since March 22d.

The Arbitrators and British Agent in-

formed thereof....
418

CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING THE GENEVA ARBITRATION AND THE PROPOSED SUPPLE-
MENTAL ARTICLE TO THE TREATY.

1. Gen. Schenck to Mr. Fish.

(Telegram.)

Feb. 2, 1872.

London journals demand withdrawal of

claims for indirect damages. Ministry

alarmed..........

425

11. Mr. Fish to Gen. Schenck.

(Telegram.)

Cannot agree to Earl Granville's proposal.

Feb. 29, 1872. Desire of this Government to meet that

of Great Britain in any honorable adjust-

ment of the incidental question which

has arisen...

Page.

Stating that he had left a copy of Mr. Fish's

instruction of 27th ultimo with Earl

Granville with regard to the province of

the Tribunal of Arbitration to decide

upon certain claims presented by the
Agent of the United States.

434

434

435

Transmits reply of Earl Granville of March

20th to Mr. Fish's instructions of 27th

ultimo, to him, (General Schenck,) and

printed memorandum in three parts. His

note treats upon incidental or consequen-

tial damages. Reviews the Johnson-

Clarendon Treaty. Part 1 of the memo-

randum treats "on the waiver of claims

for indirect losses contained in the 36th

Protocol." Part 2, on the construction

of the Treaty of Washington." Part 3,

(C on the amount of the claims for indi-

rect losses." General Schenck, in reply,
states that he will forward the above to
his Government without delay...

Asks whether there is any objection to

British Government filing Counter Case

without prejudice to their position in

regard to consequential damages.

United States understand that British Gov-

ernment is bound to file Counter Case.

The rights of both parties will be the

same after filing Counter Case as before. 460

Reply to Earl Granville's note of March

20th to General Schenck. Review of cor-

respondence during and since the then

pending negotiations between Mr. John-

son and Lord Clarendon for a convention

for the settlement of the "Alabama

Claims" question...

Interview with Earl Granville, who stated

that British Government believe that a

general desire prevails among the peo-

ple of the United States for the with-

drawal of claims for indirect losses. Gen-

eral Schenck replied that the Govern-

ment and citizens of the United States

were particularly desirous that the ques-

tion and extent of the liability of a neu-

tral should be arrived at, so that the rule

and law for all might be known in the

future

The indirect claims were not eliminated

from the general complaint of the United

States. Neither the Government nor the

American people have ever attached

much importance to the so-called indi-

rect claims. The United States do not

desire a pecuniary award on their ac-

count. The President is desirous of pre-

venting a failure of the Arbitration or

repudiation of the Treaty

460

460

474

475

Page.

34. Gen. Schenck to Mr. Fish.

(Telegram.) May 7, 1872.

35. Earl Granville to Sir E. Thornton..

May 7, 1872.

36. Mr. Fish to Gen. Schenck.

(Telegram.) May 8, 1872.

Will urge Earl Granville to modify his pro-

posal. Asks for suggestions as to what

modifications would make it possible for

the President to assent to it. Apprehends

that, rather than submit indirect claims

to judgment of Tribunal, the British

Government would cease negotiations

and make an absolute declaration against

proceeding with the Arbitration. Asks if

the following were substituted for that

sent on April 30, would United States

give its assent: Her Majesty's Govern-

ment now ready to state that if the

United States do agree not to press for

pecuniary award before the Tribunal,

Her Majesty's Government will not, in

the event of becoming a belligerent while

the United States is a neutral, advance

any claims against the United States on

account of any indirect, remote or conse-

quential results of a failure to observe

their neutrality

་

485

486

Transmits amended proposal. Same sub-

ject as contained in No. 27.

An agreement binding future action of this

Government can be made only by treaty,

and would require the assent of the Sen-

ate. If Tribunal decides against pecu-

niary damages for consequential results

of failure of any nation to observe its

neutral obligations, such decision would

be regarded as settling the question

between the two Governments in the

future..

... 486

Statement of Mr. Fish that United States

cannot withdraw any part of their Case.. 487

Conversation with General Schenck. Ob-

jections of American Government to pro-

posed draught note. Amended draught

note suggested by General Schenck.... 488

Copy of revised draught-note communicated

by Lord Granville to General Schenck.. 490

This Government is of opinion that the

submission of what are called the in-

direct claims is within the intent of the

Treaty, and their consideration within

the province of the Tribunal. The Presi-

dent is anxious to reach a settlement of

the important questions before the Tri-

bunal; is willing to consider and will

present, if possible, for consideration of

the Senate, any new article which may

be proposed by the British Government. 491

Apprehends that British Government will

declare against submission to arbitra-

tion of question of indirect damages.... 491

Communication by General Schenck of

telegram from Mr. Fish and of his in-

tended answer....

492

This Government cannot withdraw from

the province of the Tribunal what it be-

lieves to be entirely within their com-

petence. If the British Government per-

sist in their demand for the withdrawal

by the United States of indirect claims,

the responsibility of a failure of the

Treaty must rest with them..

493