DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE AND FOREIGN RELATIONS. 



241 



five chapters of the case. These five chapters were 

 printed in a memorandum form, and were submitted 

 to several gentlemen, some of whose names I may 

 mention without violating confidence : only remark- 

 ing, in justice to them, that they should not be held 

 responsible for the views in this part of the case, by 

 reason of having read it in advance : 



1. They were sent to President Woolsey, who 

 made many valuable suggestions, most of which 

 were adopted. 



2. Mr. William Beach Lawrence, the eminent pub- 

 licist, permitted me to consult him, not only after 

 these chapters were written, but also during their 

 composition. I did not adopt his well-known views 

 respecting the Queen's proclamation and the un- 

 friendliness of the British Cabinet ; nor do I suppose 

 that he, knowing my convictions to be otherwise, 

 had any idea that I would adopt them. I did, how- 

 ever, receive from him valuable hints, which im- 

 proved the work. 



3. Mr. E. K. Hoar, one of the members of the. Joint 

 High Commission, read these chapters at my request, 

 and expressed his general approval. I think that he 

 made several suggestions, and that all were adopted. 



4. The veteran statesman and scholar, General 

 Gushing, made several valuable contributions, all of 

 which were embodied in the work. 



5. The different members of the Cabinet were con- 

 sulted, and, so far as they made suggestions, their 

 views were adopted. It is within your own knowl- 

 edge that I received several valuable contributions 

 or hints from you. 



It was not until I had thus received and acted on 

 the advice of a wide circle of statesmen, jurists, and 

 publicists, competent to criticise the work, of whose 

 patriotic desire to have the interests of their country 

 represented with dignity at Geneva no one could 

 doubt, that the final chapter of the work was writ- 

 ten. This chapter contained the formal statement 

 of the claims submitted for adjudication under the 

 treaty. Among them were those which have since 

 become known as "the indirect claims." To pre- 

 vent misapprehension, it should be said that this 

 chapter was not sent out for criticism as the others 

 had been. The statements were presented in the 

 exact language of the protocol made by the two 

 parties jointly for the purpose of defining the claims 

 to be submitted to the tribunal. They were accom- 

 panied by references to the proofs respecting the 

 individual claims, and the national claims for the 

 pursuit of the cruisers ; and with a request that the 

 tribunal would estimate the national losses in the 

 transfer of the commercial marine, and in the pro- 

 longation of the war. And, in order that the state- 

 ment might be complete, some reasons were added 

 why, should the tribunal be of opinion that Great 

 Britain was responsible for the prolongation of the 

 war, the prolongation should be dated from July.1863. 

 The case, as thus revised, was reprinted, and was, 

 in accordance with the terms of the treaty, taken to 

 Geneva, and there delivered to the arbitrators and 

 to the British agent in the oificial English (and also 

 in a French translation, made for the convenience of 

 the arbitrators), together with seven volumes of ac- 

 companying documents, correspondence, and evi- 

 dence. 



The facts which were disclosed in the case were, 

 undoubtedly, such as called for the reprobation of 

 just-thinking persons ; but these facts were told, so 

 far as I was able to do so, in simple and temperate 

 language, without harshness or violence. Nothing 

 could have been further from my expectations than 

 the outburst which followed. 



In about a fortnight after we left Geneva, it began 

 to be Raid in the London newspapers that the good 

 faith^of the British Government was called in ques- 

 tion in the American case, and soon the whole press, 

 with the exception, of the newspaper universally 

 recognized as the leading journal, opened an attack 

 upon the chapter on unfriendliness. 



VOL. XII. 16 A. 



The Standard thought we had " sacrificed the con- 

 sistency and dignity of our pleadings to satisfy pop- 

 ular prejudice at home." The Telegraph spoke of 

 the "effrontery " with which the American demands 

 were set forth, and said that "it must be borne in 

 mind that General Grant seeks reelection." The 

 Saturday Review spoke of the narrative as " per- 

 verted and spiteful," and "a malignant composi- 

 tion," and said that "if the Americans wish to ex- 

 press still more hostile feelings, they must discon- 

 tinue verbal controversy." The Pail- Mall Gazette. 

 usually fair and courteous, though hostile, charged 

 that the claims had been bought up by "American 

 legislators and officers of state even among the 

 higher and more influential grade." The Spectator 

 charged us with " sharp practice," and a " discredit- 

 able forcing of the natural meaning of the treaty in 

 order to win popularity at the elections." The 

 Daily News called the claims " extravagant demands 

 intended as an electioneering card," and complained 

 that the case was a " long and passionate pleading," 

 in which " chapter after chapter is devoted to the 

 presumed motives of our [British] public men." 



In fact, fault was found indiscriminately with near- 

 ly every thing in the case except the one thing after- 

 ward made the main subject of complaint^ namely, the 

 allegation^that it contained demands which were not 

 included in the submission in the treaty. That was 

 an objection which did not appear in the British 

 press until weeks after the exchange of the docu- 

 ments at Geneva, and, so far as I am aware, was not 

 taken by any person entitled to speak by th'e author- 

 ity of the Government until, a still later day. 



Even as late as the middle of January negotiations 

 were going on between the respective agents and 

 counsel regarding the times and the manner of mak- 

 ing supplemental arguments at Geneva (should the 

 tribunal call for any), without an intimation that 

 there might be a difference as to the subjects to be 

 argued. It was not until the 3d of February that the 

 ministry announced officially that they had not 

 anticipated that the claims which have improperly 

 become known as the "indirect claims" would be 

 presented at Geneva. 



Indeed, there is some evidence that the British 

 Government was occupied with the parts of the case 

 which had offended the British press; for I gather 

 from General Schenck's telegram of the 27th of Feb- 

 ruary, reporting to you an interview with Lord 

 Granville, that the Cabinet had under consideration 

 at one time the propriety of asking for the absolute 

 withdrawal of the American case, on other grounds 

 than its presentation of the " indirect claims." * 



For several weeks, I may say months, the London 

 press continued to discuss our national claims. This 

 discussion was conducted with a vehemence, and 

 with insinuations or charges of bad faith, which at- 

 tracted the attention of the Continental press. In 

 all the principal capitals of Europe, the Alabama 

 claims became the subject of comment. The una- 

 nimity of the verdict in favor of .our construction of 

 the treaty was as complete as was the unanimity of 

 the English press in favor of Great Britain, and it 

 was universally conceded that England could not 

 retire from the arbitration without dishonor. I en- 

 close a variety of extracts on this subject. 



During all this time I was occupied in Paris in the 

 preparation of the counter-case, and the other duties 

 of the agency. On the 15th of April I was able to 

 comply with the requirements of the treaty and the 



* "He [Lord Granville] then said to me that in his 

 note of the 3d he had stated the views of her Majesty's 

 Government as to indirect claims ; that there were other 

 portions of [the] American case they regret, and some of 

 which appear to introduce matters not germane to refer- 

 ence; that he has not been able to consult Cabinet here. 

 but is indiriduatty prepared to recommend to them, and fie 

 thinks with, reasonable expectation of success, that they 

 should not press for withdrawal of American case if the 

 Government of the United States," etc., etc. (Correspond- 

 ence respecting Geneva Arbitration, page 5.) 



