in Congress ou these subjects will be found in the Globe and Appendix for the 1st Sess. 29th Cong. The motives and purposes of the United States in making this settlement are set forth in the confidential document already referred to, submitted to the Senate with the Treaty of 1871. They were "so far to depart from the 49th parallel as to leave the whole of Quadra and Vancouver's Island to England." What the British Ministry intended, was stated by Sir Robert Peel in the House of Commons on the 26th of June, 1846. "That which we proposed is the continuation of the 49th parallel of latitude till it strikes the Straits of Fuca; that that parallel should not be continued as a boundary across Vancouver's Island, thus depriving us of a part of Vancouver's Island, but that the middle of the channel shall be the future boundary, thus leaving us in possession of the whole of Vancouver's Island." It is diffi cult to see the difference between these two propositions. Lord Palmerston, however, laid claim to run the boundary through the Rosario Straits, and to embrace within British sovereignty an archipelago of islands, instead of Vancouver's Island only. The question remained open until it was settled by a provision in the Treaty of 1871, referring it to the Emperor of Germany to decide whether the Rosario Straits or the Canal de Haro was the channel through the middle of which the line should be run according to the true interpretation of the Treaty of 1846. The decision was in favor of the Haro Channel and of the claims of the United States.3

In the year 1827 the Commercial Convention of 1815, which had been renewed and extended in 1818, was again renewed. The United States struggled for more liberal agreements and for a more liberal interpretation of the existing agreement, but could secure neither.1

Ineffectual efforts were also made on both sides for the conclusion of a Treaty for the suppression of the African Slave-Trade. The Constitutional assent of the Senate could not be obtained to a provision authorizing a search of American vessels off the coasts of the United States. No treaty arrangement was come to on this subject until the Treaty of 1842, negotiated by Mr. Webster and Lord Ashburton, which has already been referred to in connection with the northeastern and northern boundaries, and in the introductory note in connection with extradition. The United States has also made like ineffectual efforts to secure a treaty for the mutual surrender of fugitive slaves. The debates in Congress on the Treaty of 1842 have already been referred to; the correspondence connected with it will be found in H. Ex. Doc. No. 2, 3d Session 27th Cong.

The acquisition of California, the easiest approaches to which, at that time, were through the various isthmus passages from Tehuantepec to

1S. Conf., Ex. Doc. A, Spec. Sess. 1871, 79. 44 F. R. F., 869; 5 F. R. F., 1, 12, 23, 224, 510;

287 Hansard, 1051 35 Pap. rel. Fr. W.

6 F. R. F., 207, 294, 295, 382, 639. 54 F.

R. F., 740; 5 F. R. F., 69, 77, 90, 140, 315-347, 359, 629, 782. See Lawrence's Wheaton, note 31, for a sketch of these negotiations. Law. Wheaton, note 77, page 243.

6

Darien, raised new questions with Great Britain. It was supposed that the most practicable route for a ship-canal was through the State of Nicaragua, by way of the San Juan River and the lakes through which it passes. The eastern coast of Nicaragua was occupied by a tribe called the Mosquito Indians, and Lord Palmerston officially informed Abbott Lawrence, the American Minister at London, on the 13th of November, 1849, that "a close political connection had existed between the Crown of Great Britain and the State and Territory of Mosquito for a period of about two centuries."! This connection was asserted to have been founded on an alleged submission by the Mosquito King to the Governor of Jamaica. The investigations made under Lawrence's directions enabled the United States not only to deny that, by public law, Indians could transfer sovereignty in the manner alleged, but also to show by contemporary evidence that no such transfer had been made. He quoted Sir Hans Sloane's account of the matter: "One King Jeremy came from the Mosquitoes, (an Indian people near the provinces of Nicaragua, Honduras, and Costa Rica;) he pretended to be a king there, and came from the others of his country to beg of the Duke of Albermarle, Governor of Jamaica, his protection, and that he would send a governor thither with a power to war on the Spaniards and pirates. This he alleged to be due to his country from the Crown of England, who had in the reign of King Charles I submitted itself to him. The Duke of Albermarle did nothing in this matter." And from another publication, reprinted in Churchill's Voyages, Lawrence was able to give an ac count of the original alleged submission in the time of Charles I: "He, the King, says that his father, Oldman, King of the Mosquito men, was carried over to England soon after the conquest of Jamaica, and there received from his brother King a crown and commission, which the present old Jeremy still keeps safely by him, which is but a cocked hat and a ridiculous piece of writing that he should kindly use and release such straggling Englishmen as should choose to come that way, with plantains, fish, turtle, &c."73

On the day that this despatch was sent from London, the ClaytonBulwer Treaty was concluded at Washington. The tentative proposal for it came from the United States. It was stated after its conclusion that it was understood that it did not include British Honduras, but there was no contemporaneous statement to show the limits of British Honduras at that time. This Treaty has since been the subject of some discussion between the two Governments.

In 1853 a convention was concluded for the adjustment of claims. The commission sat in London, and took jurisdiction of many claims. involving among them the right of visit and search on the high seas. the construction of the Convention of 1818 relating to the fisheries, the

2

4

1S. E. Doc. 27, 2d Sess. 32d Cong., 46. Ib., 90. Ib., 91-2. Ib., 54. S. E. Doc 12, 2d Sess. 32d Cong. S. E. Doc. 1, 1st Sess. 34th Cong., et seq.

obligation to restore vessels captured after the period named in the Treaty of Ghent for the cessation of acts of war, &c., &c. These decisions were printed in Senate Ex. Doc. No. 103, 1st Sess. 34th Cong.

A reference to the circumstances connected with the conclusion of the reciprocity Treaty of 1854, and of its abrogation, will be found in the confidential document submitted to the Senate with the Treaty of 1871.1 The later Treaties respecting the slave-trade have already been referred to.

No correspondence was transmitted to Congress with the Naturalization Treaty of 1870, or with the supplemental Treaty of 1871.

The course pursued by Great Britain during the late Insurrection raised many questions between the two governments, some of which were grave and threatening.

The hasty recognition of a state of belligerence, and the simultaneous steps taken to secure the adhesion of the insurgents as a belligerent power to a part of the declarations of the Congress of Paris, gave great umbrage to the United States. The correspondence on this subject is collected in the seven volumes of papers respecting the claims against Great Britain, which were presented to the Tribunal of Arbitration at Geueva with the Case of the United States.

The injuries to the commerce of the United States by the cruisers which had been constructed, equipped, armed, manned, or augmented in force or supplies within British jurisdiction, were the cause of further complaints and of further recriminations. At the close of the war the United States made a formal demand for compensation for the national losses, and for the losses to individuals from these causes, and proposed an arbitration.2

Lord Russell replied respecting the national losses, "that if the liability of neutral nations were stretched thus far, this pretension, new to the law of nations, would be most burdensome, and indeed most dangerous. A maritime nation, whose people occupy themselves in constructing ships, and cannon, and arms, might be made responsible for the whole damages of a war in which that nation had taken no part." Respecting the individual losses, he said that "Her Majesty's Government must decline either to make reparation and compensation for the captures made by the Alabama, or to refer the question to any foreign state." Subsequently a convention was signed for a reference of these claims to arbitration, but it failed to meet the approbation of the Senate. The only speech made in the Senate on the subject which has been printed, (Mr. Sumner's) may be found in the Globe, 1st Sess. 41st Cong., Appendix, page 21. The British Minister at Washington informed his Government of the rejection of this Treaty with the following

1 S. Conf. E. Doc. A, Spec. Sess. 1871, 57-74. 2 S. E. Doc. 11, 1st Sess. 41st Cong. part 1, 290, and part 3, 522. Ib., part 3, 561. Ib., 562. See 3 Pap. rel. Tr. W.,

3

191–194, for a sketch of the negotiations.

4

comments: "The sum of Mr. Sumner's assertions is that England is responsible for the property destroyed by the Alabama, and other Confederate cruizers, and even for the remote damage to American shipping interests, including the increase of the rate of insurance; that the Confederates were so much assisted by being able to get arms and ammunition from England, and so much encouraged by the Queen's proclamation, that the war lasted much longer than it would otherwise have done, and that we ought, therefore, to pay imaginary additional expenses imposed upon the United States by the prolongation of the war." 1

Mr. Fish, when he became Secretary of State, hastened to say to Mr. Motley, the United States Minister at London, that "the President recognizes the right of every power, when a civil conflict has arisen within another state, and has attained a sufficient complexity, magnitude, and completeness, to define its own relations and those of its citizens and subjects toward the parties to the conflict," and that the President regarded the concession of the rights of belligerence to the insurgents as a part of the case only so far as it shows the beginning and animus of that course of conduct which resulted so disastrously to the United States."2

66

Great Britain accepted this basis for the resumption of negotiations; and a Treaty was signed on the 8th of May, 1871, for the reference to a Tribunal of Arbitration, to be convened at Geneva, of all the said claims growing out of acts committed by the aforesaid vessels, and generically known as the "Alabama claims." This Tribunal was empowered to determine whether Great Britain had failed to fulfil any of its duties in respect of the subject of Arbitration as set forth in the Treaty; and in case it should so find, then it was further empowered to proceed to award a sum in gross to be paid to the United States for all the claims referred to it.

On the organization of the Tribunal at Geneva the United States preferred their claims, with a statement of the grounds on which indemnity was asked. The main points taken upon one side and the other are stated under the title "Neutrals," post.

The views respecting the animus of Great Britain during the insurrection, which Mr. Fish had announced his purpose of presenting for the consideration of any Tribunal which might be agreed upon to inquire into the subject, were elaborated and made the basis to support the whole claim for compensation. It was contended upon the other side, as will be seen by reference to the title "Neutrals," that the Tribunal should assume that Great Britain had exercised its powers, during the insurrection, with good faith and reasonable care, until the assumption should be "displaced by proof to the contrary" presented on behalf of the United States.

In the proceedings which followed, the United States demanded com

1S. E. Doc. 11, 1st Sess. 41st Cong., part 3, 784. 2S. E. Doc. 10, 2d Sess. 41st Cong., 4.

pensation for the following classes of losses and expenditures, so far as they grew out of the acts of the cruizers, viz: 1. "Direct losses growing out of the destruction of vessels and their cargoes." 2. "The national expenditures in the pursuit of those cruizers." 3. "The loss in the transfer of the American Commercial Marine to the British flag." "The enhanced payments of insurance." 5. "The prolongation of the war, and the addition of a large sum to the cost of the war and the suppression of the rebellion." It was denied by Great Britain that a submission of all the claims to arbitration, carried with it the right of the arbitrators to take into consideration all the elements of loss, and it was insisted that the Tribunal had no right, under the terms of the Treaty, to take classes three, four, and five into consideration in its estimate of damages. The United States denied this proposition, and contended that the Tribunal was invested with power to decide the question of the extent of its jurisdiction.3 The Tribunal, without deciding the question, held that "these claims do not constitute, upon the principles of international law applicable to such cases, good foundation for an award of compensation or computation of damages between nations, and should, upon such principles, be wholly excluded from the consideration of the Tribunal, in making its award, even if there were no disagreement between the two Governments as to the competency of the Tribunal to decide thereon."4 And in regard to the second of the above items of loss, the Tribunal, in its award, decided thus: "Whereas, so far as relates to the particulars of the indemnity claimed by the United States, the costs of pursuit of the Confederate cruizers are not, in the judgment of the Tribunal, properly distinguishable from the general expenses of the war, carried on by the United States: The Tribunal is therefore of opinion, by a majority of three to two voices that there is no ground for awarding to the United States any sum by way of indemnity under this head." The Tribunal awarded to the United States the sum of fifteen and one-half millions of dollars in full satisfaction of the claims referred to it.

Under the same Treaty a commission was organized at Washington to adjudicate upon private claims of citizens of each against the other power arising out of acts committed against the persons or property of their citizens during a period which was assumed to be the period of the existence of the insurrection. The language of the submission in the Treaty was selected by the negotiators with the object of excluding from the consideration of the Arbitrators a class of claims known as the Confederate cotton-debt, which the Secretary of State informed the British Minister that the United States would not consent to refer. Such claims were, however, presented before the Commission by the British

11 Pap. rel. Tr. W., 185. 2 Ib., 425-588. The opinion of Lord Longhbrough, already referred to, respecting the powers of the Commissioners under the 7th Article of Jay's Treaty, would seem to be conclusive on this point. See also Lawrence's note on Wheaton, No. 206, p. 680. 44 Pap. rel. Tr. W., 20. Ib., 53.

5