240 DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE AND FOREIGN RELATIONS. 



Extensive direct losses in the capture and destruction 

 of a lar<*e number of vessels, with their cargoes, and in 

 the heavy national expenditure in the pursuit of the 

 cruisers; and indirect injury in the transfer of a large 

 part of the American commercial marine to the British 

 fla in the enhanced payment of insurance, in the pro- 

 longation of the war, and in the addition of a large sum 

 to the cost of the war and the suppression of the rebel- 

 lion. 



At the same time, they indicated the manner in 

 which some of these claims could be substantiated, 

 namely : the claims for the loss and destruction or 

 private property in the ordinary manner; the cost 

 of the pursuit of the cruisers, " by certificates of 

 Government accounting-officers," and what they 

 styled " indirect losses," by estimates. All the sub- 

 sequent negotiations proceeded from this starting- 

 point. 



It has been shown, beyond possible question, in 

 the argument of General Gushing, Mr. Evarts, and 

 Mr. Waite, presented to the tribunal on the 15th of 

 June last, that this definition of our claims was in 

 strict accordance with all previous negotiations be- 

 tween the two governments, with the action of the 

 Senate of the United States, and with the official ex- 

 pressions of the President to Congress. 



The British members of the Joint High Commis- 

 sion took no exception to the definition when it was 

 made by their American colleagues. They acqui- 

 esced in it. 



When I had the honor to receive the directions of 

 the President to prepare the case of the United States 

 for submission to the tribunal, I regarded myself as 

 bound by the definition of the words " Alabama 

 Claims," which the American commissioners had 

 given in the opening conference, which they had ad- 

 hered to throughout the negotiations, and which had 

 been placed in the protocol by the joint act of all the 

 commissioners. I looked in vain in the treaty for 

 any waiver or remission of those claims. On the 

 contrary, I found an express provision that the 

 United States were to have the judgment of the tri- 

 bunal on all their claims growing out of the acts of 

 the cruisers. 



The question was a practical one ; for the claims 

 for " enhanced rates of insurance "were among those 

 which had been classified as " indirect " in the state- 

 ment, which had received the approval of all the 

 members of the Joint High Commission. Many 

 claims of this character were presented at the De- 

 partment of State, and a circular was issued, under 

 the immediate direction of the Secretary of State, 

 informing claimants that all claims growing out of 

 the acts of the cruisers would be presented to the 

 tribunal, leaving that body to determine on their 

 merits. 



It was impossible for me to prepare the case and. 

 at the same time, to direct in person the details of 

 the arrangement of the evidence respecting the 

 national and individual claims. Mr. Charles C. 

 Beaman, Jr., of New York ; was employed to do the 

 latter, under general directions from me, and did his 

 work with admirable fidelity. Thus, the evidence 

 already collected, together with important new ma- 

 terials from the archives of the several Departments, 

 and the proof of the losses suffered by individual 

 claimants, were arranged and stated in the manner 

 marked out by the American members of the Joint 

 High Commission, namely : 



1. The evidence offered by individual claimants 

 for the loss and destruction of property, and for en- 

 hanced rates of insurance, was analyzed and tabulated, 

 and a full abstract of each case was prepared by the 

 clerks. 



2. The national claims for the pursuit of the cruis- 

 ers were stated and tabulated at the Navy Depart- 

 ment, and were inserted by us exactly as received 

 from that Department. 



3. No proof was offered of the national losses by 

 the transfer of the commercial marine, or by the pro- 

 longation of the war, but they were left to be esti- 



mated by the Tribunal of Arbitration, should Great 

 Britain be found responsible for them. 



The case, which was reserved for my own work 

 was constructed on the following theories of fact and 

 of law theories which have received the sanction of 

 the eminent counsel of the United States; which 

 have been adhered to in all the arguments, and 

 which have, to no small extent, been adopted by the 

 arbitrators : 



(a.) That the Tribunal of Arbitration was a ju- 

 dicial body, substituted by the parties to take the 

 place of force, and empowered to try and determine 

 issues which otherwise could be settled (if at all) 

 only by war. 



(5.) That the injuries of the United States should 

 be stated, therefore, with the fulness necessary to a 

 determination in a court of law, and with the same 

 frankness with which they would be stated in case 

 of an appeal to force. I did not think that the 

 United States could obtain full justice at the hands 

 of the arbitrators, if any appreciable part of their 

 wrongs were left untold. 



(c.) That the Government of Great Britain, by its 

 indiscreet haste in counselling the Queen's proclama- 

 tion recognizing the insurgents as belligerents, by 

 its preconcerted joint action with France respecting 

 the declarations of the Congress of Paris, by its refu- 

 sal to take steps for the amendment of its neutrality 

 laws, by its refraining for so long a time from seizing 

 the rams at Liverpool, by its conduct in the affair of 

 the Trent, and by its approval of the course of its 

 colonial officers at various times ; and that the indi- 

 vidual members of the Government, by their open 

 and frequent expressions of sympathy with the in- 

 surgents, and of desires for their success, had exhib- 

 ited an unfriendly feeling, which might affect their 

 own course, and could not but affect the action of 

 their subordinates ; and that all this was a want of 

 the " due diligence" in the observance of neutral 

 duties which is required at once by the treaty and by 

 international law. 



It seemed to me that such facts, when proved, im- 

 bued with the character of culpable negligence many 

 acts of subordinates in the British service for which, 

 otherwise, the Government might not be held re- 

 sponsible ; as, for instance, acts of the collector of 

 customs at Liverpool respecting the Florida and the 

 Alabama ; acts or the authorities at Nassau respect- 

 ing the arming of the Florida at Green Bay, and 

 subsequently respecting her supplies of coal; acts of 

 the authorities at Bermuda respecting the Florida ; 

 and acts of the authorities at Melbourne respecting 

 the Shenandoah. There were many such acts or 

 subordinates which, taken individually and by them- 

 selves, would not form a just basis for holding cul- 

 pable a government which was honestly and with 

 vigilance striving to perform its duty as a neutral ; 

 but which, taken in connection with each other, and 

 with the proofs of animus which we offered, estab- 

 lish culpability in the Government itself. 



(d.) That the insurgents established and main- 

 tained, unmolested throughout the insurrection, ad- 

 ministrative bureaus on British soil, by means of 

 which the several cruisers were dispatched from 

 British ports, or were enabled to make them bases 

 of hostile operations against the United States, and 

 that the British Government was cognizant of it. 



(e.) That Great Britain, from the outset, denied, 

 and to the last persisted in denying, that the depart- 

 ure of vessels like the Alabama and the Florida, unde 

 any circumstances, could be a breach of internationf 

 duty ; and had refused to exercise diligence to pr 

 vent such departure. 



(/.) That in point of fact no such diligence hi 

 been exercised ; and that, while there were particuk 

 facts as to each vessel, tending to^fix^responsibilit 

 upon Great Britain, these general indisputable fad 

 were sufficient to carry responsibility for the acts of 

 all the cruisers. 



The treatment of this line of argument exhai 



