242 



DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE AND FOREIGN RELATIONS. 



directions of the tribunal by delivering the counter- 

 case and accompanying documents to Mr. Favrot for 

 the British agent and for the arbitrators. The vol- 

 ume of evidence accompanying the counter-case was 

 selected and arranged under the directions of the 

 counsel. At the same time I delivered French trans- 

 lations of these documents, and also two volumes 

 containing French translations of selected pieces 

 from the seven volumes of evidence submitted with 

 the case in December. 



This, and much of the subsequent work, could 

 not have been completed in season had not the sec- 

 retaries been willing, when called upon, to work day 

 and night for the purpose. 



Lord Tenterden met me at Geneva in April with 

 unreserve, and in the spirit of conciliation. Under 

 instructions from his government, he lodged with 

 the secretary of the tribunal a notice to the individ- 

 ual arbitrators of the action taken by her Majesty's 

 Government on the 3d of February, in order that the 

 act of filing the British counter-case should not be 

 deemed to be a waiver of that action. But he did 

 not conceal his own strong desire to save the treaty, 

 and he left on my mind the conviction that the 

 judicial solution which the tribunal subsequently 

 made of the political difficulty raised by the British 

 note of the 3d of February would be accepted by the 

 British Government. 



The time between the 15th of April and the 15th 

 of June was occupied by the counsel in the prepara- 

 tion of their argument. This argument has attracted 

 great attention throughout Europe, and has received 

 universal praise as a masterly vindication of our 

 rights. 



On the 15th of June the tribunal reassembled, the 

 agents and counsel on both sides being present. 

 The argument of the United States was duly de- 

 livered (together with the French translation made 

 for the convenience of the arbitrators) ; but the Brit- 

 ish agent, instead of filing the British argument, 

 asked for an adjournment of several months, in order 

 to enable the two governments to arrange politically 

 the questions in dispute. 



I had already discussed with General Gushing the 

 probability of adjusting these differences by the 

 action of the tribunal. Instead of assenting to the 

 proposed adjournment, I therefore, with the full 

 concurrence of the counsel, asked for an adjourn 

 ment of two days, in order to give us time to con- 

 sider the position. Before the tribunal convened 

 again, steps were taken for removing the difficulty 

 through the action of that body. In the proceedings 

 which followed we acted as a unit on our side. 

 Happily they resulted in a solution by the tribunal, 

 which proved to be acceptable to both governments. 

 The arbitrators announced their opinion that the 

 claims known as the indirect claims did not con- 

 stitute, on principles of international law applicable 

 to such cases, good and sufficient foundation for an 

 award of compensation or computation of damages 

 between nations. On the side of Great Britain the 

 solution was a practical one ; no damages were to be 

 awarded for this class of claims. On our side the 

 solution was reached in the manner pointed out by 

 the treaty, viz., by the action of the court. On the 

 suggestion of the other side, this unofficial act was 

 then formally entered as an official judgment, in the 

 following language : 



Count Sclopis. on behalf of all the arbitrators, then 

 declared that the said several claims for indirect losses 

 mentioned in the statement nwrie by the agent of the 

 United States on the 25th instant, and referred to in the 

 statement just made by the a^ent. of her Britannic Ma- 

 jesty, are, and from henceforth will be, wholly excluded 

 from the consideration of the tribunal, and directed the 

 secretary to embody this declaration in the protocol of 

 this day's proceedings. 



In all these proceedings, I found the British agent 

 and counsel sharing our sincere and earnest desire 

 to save the treaty. 



The British argument was next filed, with my 



consent, and an effort was then made on their side 

 to reopen argument and secure a new hearing on the 

 whole question. This was successfully resisted, and 

 the tribunal took a recess for a fortnight. 



On Monday, July 15th, it reassembled. The efforts 

 on the part of Great Britain to secure reargument 

 were renewed. The neutral arbitrators said that 

 they had examined the whole case, and that they 

 wanted no rehearing. It was decided by the tri- 

 bunal to give the opinion of the arbitrators seriatim 

 on each cruiser, beginning with the Florida. 



Sir Alexander Cock burn presented the facts and 

 reasoning affecting this vessel at an extreme length, 

 holding Great Britain free of blame. The other ar- 

 bitrators held her responsible, reserving, however, 

 the question as to the effect of a commission. 



Sir Alexander Cockburn, then, in vigorous lan- 

 guage, and with great warmth of manner, urged the 

 tribunal to permit an argument upon the meaning 

 of the words " due diligence," upon the effect of a 

 commission, and upon the law respecting the sup- 

 plies of coal. The tribunal granted the request. I 

 was^myself, in favor of allowing further arguments, 

 within some defined scope. I thought that we had 

 nothing to lose by an argument, in which we had 

 the reply, in the hands of such masters of discussion 

 as General Cushing, Mr. Evarts, and Mr. Waite. 



The hearings were ordered, and, before the disso- 

 lution of the tribunal, arguments had been made (al- 

 ways on the suggestion of England), on the follow- 

 ing points, the British counsel leading, and ours fol- 

 lowing : 1. On the meaning of the words " due dili- 

 gence;" 2. On the effect of a commission on the 

 offending vessel ; 3. On supplies of coal ; 4. On the 

 recruitment of men for the Shenandoah, at Mel- 

 bourne ; 5. On the effect of the entry of the Florida 

 into the port of Mobile ; 6. On the subject of inter- 

 est; 7. On the general subject of the statement of 

 claims. These arguments were presented generally 

 both in the English and the French languages. 



The protocols which accompany this dispatch 

 show the order in which these various papers were 

 delivered, and the order in which the arbitrators 

 considered the various cruisers. It was not until 

 after the arguments on the first four subjects, that 

 the formal votes required by the treaty were taken 

 separately upon the responsibility of Great Britain 

 as to each cruiser. The tribunal decided unanimous- 

 ly that there was responsibility for the acts of the 

 Alabama. Count Sclopis, Mr. Stumpfii, and Mr. 

 Adams, held that there was responsibility for the 

 acts of the Shenandoah after leaving Melbourne, but 

 not before. Great Britain was released from re- 

 sponsibility as to the other vessels, except the 

 Florida; Mr. Adams holding that there was re- 

 sponsibility for the acts of the Eetribution, and Mr. 

 Stampfli holding that there was responsibility for 

 the acts of that vessel only so far as related to the 

 Emily Fisher. The formal vote on the Florida was 

 taken at a subsequent conference, after argument by 

 counsel on the special question of the effect of the 

 entry into Mobile. Count Sclopis, Viscount d'lta- 

 juba, Mr. Stampfli, and Mr. Adams, held there Avas 

 responsibility for her acts. 



The deliberations of the tribunal, on the subject of 

 damages, were held with closed doors. The arbitra- 

 tors asked each party for comparative tables, which 

 were furnished. On our side, we limited ourselves 

 to the request of the tribunal. On the other side, 

 new tables were put in with new and elaborate crit- 

 icisms upon our list of claims. We did not object 

 to this irregular criticism, but claimed the right of 

 reply given by the treaty. 



The tribunal, at length, announced that a result 

 had been reached, that fifteen and a half millions of 

 dollars would be awarded as a gross sum, to be paid 

 by Great Britain to the United States. It does not 

 appear in the protocols how the arbitrators arrived 

 at this amount. I am informed that it was reached 

 by mutual concessions. 



The neutral arbitrators and Mr. Adams, from tho 



