DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONI 



FORKKiN" l:i 



271 



favor of one- '>r tin- other of the parties shoul I not 

 Of <-l:iii:i-, iii which tl.. 



; i\ I. interested, i In 1 



disagreement lie. \\ern til 



: Mini-ill, w illi a \ 



both, tliink it neces-. 



1 . Sewan! in your 



nli of January, "in the c\ent or an undcr- 



i.i between ila- tuo ;oivern- 

 ii-umer iu which tho special Ameri- 

 " which have formed tho subject of the 

 1 -nco of which my present dispatch i; the 

 :i with, that, under a convcn- 

 ]>ar.:t ,-ly Imt simultaneously concluded, 

 M-rul claims of the. subjects and eiti/.ens of the 

 i -ing out of the events of the late 

 obmitted to a mixed commission, 

 with u view to their eventual payment by the gov- 

 ;it ih.it may bejudged responsible for them." 

 Such, thc'ii. is the proposal which her Majesty's 

 ire to submit to the Government of 

 : limited reference to arbitration 

 .ird to the so-called Alabama clnims, and adju- 

 dication by menus of a mixed commission of general 

 claims. 



August 12, 1807, Mr. Sewarcl replies to the 

 above, and, by u subsequent letter of May 21th 

 to tho same crt'ect, that 



The President considers these terms to be at once 

 e.impreheusive and sufficiently precise to include all 

 l.-.ims of American citizens for depredations 

 upon their commerce during the late rebellion, which 

 vi n the subject of complaint upon the part of 

 :.>vernmcut. But the United States Govern- 

 ment, in this view, would deem itself at liberty to 

 before the arbiter that the actual proceedings 

 and relations of the British Government, its officers, 

 , and subjects, toward the United States in 

 i to the rebellion and the rebels, as they oc- 

 i during the rebellion, are among the matters 

 which are connected with the vessels whose depre- 

 dations are complained of, just as is the case of gen- 

 eral claims alluded to by Lord Stanley, the actual 

 proceedings and relations of her Majesty's Govern- 

 ment, its otliccrs, agents, and subjects, in regard to 

 the United States and in regard to the rebellion and 

 tho rebels, are necessarily connected with the 

 transactions out of which those general claims 

 arose. 



Lord Stanley's plan seems to be to constitute two 

 descriptions of tribunals one an arbiter to deter- 

 mine the question of moral responsibility of the 

 British Government in respect of the Alabama, 

 Florida, Georgia, ami other vessels of that class; 

 and the other mixed commission to adjudicate the 

 so-called general claims of both sides; and acontin- 

 vfereuce to the same or other mixed commis- 

 Mon, to uncertain and determine the amount of 

 damages, for indemnity, to be awarded in the cases 

 examined by the first tribunal in the event of a de- 

 cision, upon the question of moral responsibility, in 

 favor of the United States. 



No distinction as to principle, between the tribu- 

 nals, seems to the United States to be necessary ; and 

 in every case the United States agree only to unre- 

 stricted arbitration. Convenience may require that 

 the claims should be distributed between two tribu- 

 nals, both of which, however, in the opinion of the 

 United States, should proceed upon the same princi- 

 ples, and be clothed with the same powers. 



The views of the British Government, upon 

 I ho proposition as made in Mr. Seward's dis- 

 MMrli, are set forth by Lord Stanley to Mr. 

 Ford, under date of November 10, 1807 : 



But to prevent any misapprehension on this sub- 

 ject, her Majesty's Government think it necessary dis- 



tinctly to soy, both as regards the so-called Al- 

 oUlmi brought fonvard l> 



litnx, 

 that they cannot depart, dir.-etly or in.nt. ctljr, from 



their refusal to "refer to a foreign pow 



. hether the iioliey of recognizing i 



as a belligerent power was or was not 

 suitable to tin- i ncumstunces of the time when the 

 ition was made.'' 



gards the so-called Alabama claims, the only 

 point to whieh her Mujeaty's Government can con- 

 sent to refer to the dcei-i'm of an arbiter, is the 

 i|ue-tion of the moral responsibility of her Majesty's 

 uncut, on the assumption that an actual state 

 of war existed between the Government of the 

 United States and the Confederate States; and on 

 that assumption it would be for the arbiter to deter- 

 mine whether there had been any such failure on the 

 part of the British Government as t neutral in tho 

 observance, legally or morally, of any duties or re- 

 lations toward the Government of the United States 

 a - e.nild be deemed to involve a moral responsibility 

 on the part of the British Government to make good 

 losses of American citizens caused by the Alabama 

 and other vessels of the same class. 



As regards the general claims, the question of 

 moral responsibility on the part of her Majesty's 

 Government does not, and cannot, come into dispute 

 at all. 



Mr. Seward rightly supposes that her Majesty's 

 Government contemplated two tribunals for the ad- 

 judication, one of the Alabama claims, the other of 

 the general claims the one being, in the first in- 

 stance, at all events, the tribunal of an arbiter, who 

 would be called upon to pronounce on the principles 

 of the moral responsibility of the British Govern- 

 ment, and on the nature of whose decision would 

 depend the question of the appointment of a mixed 

 commission for the examination in detail of the 

 several claims of citizens of the United States to 

 which that decision applied namely, those arising 

 out of the depredations of the Alabama and other 

 similar vessels, and the adjudication of the sums 

 payable in each case; the other, in its commence- 

 ment and to its close, a purely mixed commission for 

 the examination of the general claims of the subjects 

 and citizens of both countries arising out of the war, 

 and the adjudication of the sums payable by either 

 country in each case. 



The distinction between the two classes of claims 

 is clear the one may never come before a mixed 

 commission, and therefore may not require the as- 

 sistance of an arbiter to decide differences of detail 

 arising between the commissioners ; the other, though 

 originally brought before a mixed commission, may 

 possibly require the intervention of an arbiter in cose 

 of difference of opinion among the members of tho 

 commission, which could not be otherwise recon- 

 ciled, and for which case provision would bo mado 

 in the ordinary way in the convention for the settle- 

 ment of the mixed'claimsbv the insertion of articles 

 in regard to the selection of an arbiter. 



The functions of such an arbiter, as well as of an 

 arbiter for a like purpose in the other mixed com- 

 mission, for which provision would have to be made 

 to meet the contingency of the so-called Alabama 

 claims coming eventually under the cognizance of a 

 mixed commission, would have nothing in common 

 with the functions of the arbiter to whom the ques- 

 tion of principle involved in the last-mentioned cases 

 of claims would be referred. 



Her Majesty's Government cannot but apprehend 

 that, if Mr. Seward really requires unrestricted arbi- 

 tration as applicable to both classes of claims, and 

 that the tribunal in both classes of coses should pro- 

 ceed upon the same principles and be clothe ! 

 the same power, he has not fully considered the wide 

 and inevitable distinction which exists between tho 

 classes; and, in directing you to submit to the con- 

 sideration of Mr. Seward the explanations and ob- 



