depredations committed and damages occasioned by such vessel. The American commissioners regarded these rules as existing rules of international law; the British commissioners thought otherwise. On the 9th of March the latter presented a paper, embodying their individual views, to the effect that a neutral was bound (1) to take "reasonable care" that no ship employed or intended to be employed in the service of a belligerent should be "equipped for war or suffered to augment her armament" within such neutral's territory, and (2) if a ship which had been "equipped for war" in violation of neutrality should afterward be found within the jurisdiction, to detain it, unless it had in the interval been "commissioned as a public ship of war," or been "deprived of all military equipment and bona fide converted into a ship of commerce." Subsequently, after the American commissioners had presented another draft of rules, Lord de Grey suggested that the term "due diligence" be substituted for the term "active diligence;" and it was done. Lord de Grey also asked whether the rules presented by the American commissioners embodied principles to which the United States would submit in future. Mr. Fish and Mr. Justice Nelson said that they were so regarded.

Objection was strongly made by the British commissioners to including separately the "construction" of a vessel in the prohibition against fitting out, arming, or equipping. Mr. Justice Nelson said that, although the word "construction" was not used in the statute of the United States, the courts had held that it was covered by the term "fitting out," if the construction was for hostile purposes. The British commissioners, however, thought the word too broad, and it was ultimately dropped.

Great difficulty was found in the discussion of the question as to the duty of arresting a vessel that had escaped and as to when such duty terminated. In regard to the suggestion made by the British commissioners on this subject on the 9th of March various proposals and counter proposals were made. On the 14th of March the American commissioners presented the following paper:

"I. A neutral government is bound to use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming or equipping within its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise or to carry on war against a power with which it is at peace; and also to use like diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended so to cruise or carry on war, such vessel having

been specially adapted in whole or in part, within such jurisdiction, to warlike use, or armed, fitted out or equipped therein.

"II. A neutral is bound not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations, or as the place for the renewal or angmentation of military supplies, or arms, or the recruitment of men.

"III. A neutral is bound to exercise due watchfulness over its ports and waters, and over all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation of the foregoing obligations and duties.

"IV. A vessel which has departed from the jurisdiction of a neutral government in violation of the neutrality thereof, if afterward found within the jurisdiction of that government, ought to be detained unless she have in the interval been duly and lawfully commissioned as a public vessel of war; but if she have been thus commissioned as a public vessel of war, and be not detained, the national responsibility of such neutral government continues in respect of injuries and losses occasioned to the aggrieved belligerent subsequent to such departure, and until the original offense be deposited by the bona fide termination of the cruise."

The fourth rule it was decided, after much discussion, to omit. The first three rules the British commissioners took into consideration and promised to submit to their government.

"Alabama" Claims.

At the conference on the 5th of April the Agreement as to the British commissioners stated that they were instructed to declare that they could not assent to the proposed rules as a statement of principles of international law which were in force at the time when the Alabama claims arose, but that Her Majesty's Government, in order to evince its desire of strengthening the friendly relations between the two countries and of making satisfactory provision for the future, agreed that in deciding the questions between the two countries arising out of those claims the arbitrator should assume that Her Majesty's Government had undertaken to act upon the principles set forth in the rules in question. They then presented a slightly amended draft of the rules, which was agreed upon. This draft was as follows:

"That a neutral government is bound

"First, to use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming, or equipping, within its jurisdiction, of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or carry on war against a power with which it is at peace; and also to use like diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or in part, within such jurisdiction, to warlike use,

"Secondly. Not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations against the other, or for the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms, or the recruitment of

men.

"Thirdly. To exercise due diligence in its own ports or waters, and as to all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation of the foregoing obligations and duties.

"It being a condition of this undertaking that these obligations should in future be held to be binding internationally between the two countries.”

When the foregoing rules were adopted, it was also settled that the arbitrator should be governed by such principles of international law, not inconsistent therewith, as he should determine to have been applicable to the case.

At the conferences on the 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 12th of April the joint high commission discussed the form of the submission, the manner of the award, and the mode of selecting the arbitrators. The British commissioners, in response to the inquiry of their American colleagues, stated that they were authorized to express, in a friendly spirit, the regret felt by Her Majesty's Government for the escape, under whatever circumstances, of the Alabama and other vessels from British ports, and for the depredations committed by those vessels. The American commissioners accepted this expression of regret as very satisfactory to them and as a token of kindness, and said that they felt sure it would be so received by the government and people of the United States.

Subsequent Confer

In the conference on the 13th of April Articles I. to XI. of the treaty, relating to the Alabama claims, were agreed to.1 After its agreement as to the arbitration of the Alabama claims, the joint high commission was occupied with the other questions referred to it till the 3d of May.2 On the 4th of May the commissioners met and directed the entry in the protocol of that day of a

ences.

1 Statement entered in protocol of May 4, 1871. (For. Rel. 1873, Part 3, pp. 397-398.)

23 It is needless to say that the labors of the commission were attended with the usual social accessories. Lang, in his Life, Letters, and Diaries of Sir Stafford Northcote (II. 12), says: "In an enterprise like that of the British commissioners political and social functions are so blended that it is difficult to keep their descriptions distinct. Dinner parties, dances, receptions, and a queer kind of fox hunt, with picnics and expeditions in the beautiful Virginia country, alternated with serious business and grave discussion."

summary prepared by the protocolists of all the proceedings of the commission. On the 6th of May the commissioners again assembled.

"Lord de Grey said that, as the joint high commission would not meet again * * * except for the purpose of signing the treaty, he desired, on behalf of himself and his colleagues, to express their high appreciation of the manner in which Mr. Fish and his American colleagues had, on their side, conducted the negotiations. It had been most gratifying to the British commissioners to be associated with colleagues who were animated with the same sincere desire as themselves to bring about a settlement, equally honorable and just to both countries, of the various questions of which it had been their duty to treat, and the British commissioners would always retain a grateful recollection of the fair and friendly spirit which the American commissioners had displayed.

"Mr. Fish, in behalf of the American commissioners, said that they were gratefully sensible of the friendly words expressed by Lord de Grey, and of the kind spirit which had prompted them. From the date of the first conference the American commissioners had been impressed by the earnestness of desire manifested by the British commissioners to reach a settlement worthy of the two powers who had committed to this joint high commission the treatment of various questions of peculiar interest, complexity, and delicacy. His colleagues and he could never cease to appreciate the generous spirit and the open and friendly manner in which the British commissioners had met and discussed the several questions that had led to the conclusion of a treaty which it was hoped would receive the approval of the people of both countries, and would prove the foundation of a cordial and friendly understanding between them for all time to come.

"Mr. Fish further said that he was sure that every member of the joint high commission would desire to record his appreciation of the ability, the zeal, and the unceasing labor which the joint protocolists had exhibited in the discharge of their arduous and responsible duties, and that he knew that he only gave expression to the feelings of the commissioners in saying that Lord Tenterden and Mr. Bancroft Davis were entitled to, and were requested to accept, the thanks of the joint high commission for their valuable services and the great assistance 5627-35

which they had rendered with unvarying obligingness to the commission.

"Lord de Grey replied, on behalf of the British commissioners, that he and his colleagues most cordially concurred in the proposal made by Mr. Fish that the thanks of the joint high commission should be tendered to Mr. Bancroft Davis and Lord Tenterden for their valuable services as joint protocolists. The British commissioners were also fully as sensible as their American colleagues of the great advantage which the commission had derived from the assistance which those gentlemen had given them in the conduct of the important negotiations in which they had been engaged.

"Monday, the 8th of May, was appointed for the signature of the treaty."1

Signature of the
Treaty.

On that day the commissioners met, according to appointment. "We had a bright, sunny day," says Mr. Davis," "for the signature of the treaty. The room was decorated with flowers. All the young men from the British commission were present, and nearly or quite all the clerks from the Department. McCarthy put on the seals in wax, and then the signatures were affixed at a little table in the corner of the big room.3 I tossed up with Tenterden for the order of signing, and he won. The last signature was affixed at twelve minutes past eleven. Senators Morton, Hamlin, Patterson, and Frelinghuysen arrived while we were signing."

1 Protocol of May 6, 1871.

2 MS. Journal.

3 In Sir Stafford Northcote's Life, Letters, and Diaries (II. 17), it is stated that the clerk who affixed the seals was "awkward and nervous, and Tenterden did not help to put him at his ease by dropping quantities of burning sealing wax on his fingers. The poor man was so much excited that he burst into tears at the conclusion of the affair." His grief was, however, at least in a measure assuaged by the action of the commissioners in making him a present of money for the purchase of a memento. McCarthy, the person referred to, was still in the Department when I entered it, in 1885, and he remained there till his death, about 1892. He was an Irishman, small in stature, and deformed from an affection of the spine; and he was somewhat fond of usquebaugh. But he was a faithful and valuable clerk, and, among other services that he performed, he brought order out of the chaos of "pub. docs." which had through a long course of years accumulated in the Department of State.