DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE AND FOREIGN RELATIONS. 



255 



In short, these claims are only conjectural in amount, 

 and unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. 



2. Additional claims for shares of vessels not claimed 

 for up to the present time, e.g.: where an individual 

 claimant has only claimed for four-fifths of the value of a 

 vessel, an arbitrary claim is now advanced for the first 

 time on the part of the United States Government for the 

 value of the remaining fifth. 



It is not alleged that the part owner who had not pre- 

 viously claimed has now given any authority for this 

 claim to be advanced. The strong presumption, indeed, 

 is that he may have already received the value of his share 

 from English or other foreign insurance companies, with 

 whom it was insured, and who are not entitled under the 

 treaty to advance any claim. 



3. Claims previously presented have been increased in 

 amount without any ground appearing for such increase. 



The total amount of these three classes of claims, which 

 are now for the first time advanced on the part of the 

 United States Government, appears, in round numbers, 

 to be at least two millions of dollars. 



Independently of the fact that these additional claims 

 are unsupported by any evidence, it is my duty respect- 

 fully to submit to the tribunal that th^additional state- 

 ment of any new claims whatever, in^his stage of the 

 arbitration, for the purpose of influencing or affecting the 

 judgment of the tribunal upon any matter within its au- 

 thority, is contrary to the provisions of the treaty. 



The treaty contemplates that the statements of facts 

 and evidence, constituting the whole case of each party, 

 should be brought before the tribunal within the times 

 and in the manner specified in Articles III., IV., and V., 

 subject only to such further statements or arguments as 

 under Article V. the arbitrators may think fit to require 

 or permit for the elucidation of any point contained in, 

 or arising out of, the documents previously put in by 

 either party. 



I have also to submit that the introduction of such ad- 

 ditional claims is not authorized by the request made by 

 the arbitrators. 



This request was, that comparative statements of the 

 results in figures of the claims already made, as appearing 

 in the papers previously presented, according to the views 

 of the respective parties, should be prepared, with explan- 

 atory observations, and laid before the tribunal, and it 

 could not have been intended to afford the opportunity 

 for bringing forward new, or increasing former, claims. 



Under these circumstances, I respectfully request the 

 arbitrators to disallow, as unauthorized by them, and as 

 contrary to the treaty, the tables containing such addi- 

 tional claims, presented by the agent of the United 

 States, and the memorandum relating to them, without 

 prejudice to his right to present other tables, accompa- 

 nied by any explanatory observations, which shall be 

 limited to the particular claims already set forth in the 

 case and counter-case of the United States, and the ap- 

 pendices thereto. 



The tribunal decided to adjourn the consideration 

 of this matter until the next conference. 



Sir Roundell Palmer, as counsel of her Britannic 

 Majesty, then read the argument required by the 

 tribunal on Sir Alexander Cockburn's proposal, upon 

 the question of law mentioned in Protocol XXIV., 

 and Mr. Evarts, as counsel of the United States, re- 

 plied to it. 



On the proposal of Viscount d'ltajuba, one of the 

 arbitrators, the tribunal decided to adjourn until the 

 next conference the further discussion upon the 

 Florida, and to proceed with the definitive vote on 

 each vessel separately. 



The tribunal then decided that it had to consider 

 only such vessels with regard to which claims were 

 presented in the case and counter-case of the United 

 States ; every other question being consequently 

 understood as ^dismissed from consideration. 



Count Sclopis, as president of the tribunal, hav- 

 ing read Article VIT. of the Treaty of Washing- 

 ton, asked the tribunal whether, as to the Sumter, 

 Great Britain has, by any act or omission, failed to 

 fulfil any of the duties set forth in the three rules 

 mentioned in Article VI. of the treaty, or recognized 

 by the principles of international law, not inconsist- 

 ent with^such rules. _ 



The tribunal unanimously replied, " No." 



The same question was asked as to the Nashville, 

 and the tribunal unanimously replied, "No." 



The same question was renewed as to the Eetri- 

 bution. 



Mr. Adams answered, " Yes, for all the acts of this 

 vessel." 



Mr. Staempfli answered, " Yes, as to the loss of 

 the Emily Fisher." 



Sir Alexander Cockburn, Viscount d'ltajuba, and 

 Count Sclopis answered, "No." 



The same question was asked as to the Georgia, 

 and the tribunal unanimously answered " No." 



The same question was repeated as to the Talla- 

 hasse and Chickamauga, separately, and the tribunal 

 unanimously answered, u No " for each of these ves- 

 sels. 



The same question having been repeated as to the 

 Alabama, the -tribunal unanimously answered, 

 " Yes." 



The same question was renewed as to to the She- 

 nandoah, and Mr. Adams, Mr. Stunpfli, and Count 

 Sclopis answered, " Yes ; but only for the acts com- 

 mitted by this vessel after her departure from Mel- 

 bourne on the 18th of February, 1865." Viscount 

 d'ltajuba and Sir Alexander Cockburn answered, 

 " No." 



The definitive vote on the Florida was adjourned 

 until the next meeting. 



The conference was then adjourned until Monday, 

 the 26th instant, at half-past i2 o'clock. 



FEEDEEICK SCLOPIS. 



J. C. BANCEOFT DAVIS. 



TENTEEDEN. 



ALEX. FAVEOT, Secretary. 



PEOTOCOL XXVI. 



Secord of the Proceedings of the Tribunal of Arbitration 

 at the T^centy-siyth Conference held at Geneva, inSicit- 

 eerland, on the Mth of August, 1672. 



The conference was held pursuant to adjournment. 

 All the arbitrators and the agents of the two govern- 

 ments were present. 



The protocol of the last conference was read and 

 approved, and was signed by the president and 

 secretary of the tribunal, and the agents of the two 

 governments. 



Lord Tenterden, as agent of her Britannic Majesty, 

 delivered to the tribunal and the agent of the United 

 States tables of figures relating to the claims con- 

 tained in the tables presented on the part of the 

 United States on the 19th instant. 



The tribunal concluded the discussion of the ques- 

 tion concerning the entrance of the Florida into 

 Mobile, and her stay at that port, and proceeded to 

 the definitive vote on this vessel. 



Count Sclopis, as president of the tribunal, having 

 asked, under the Vllth Article of the Treaty of Wash- 

 ington, whether, as to the Florida, Gre'at Britain 

 had, by any act or omission, failed to fulfil any of 

 the duties set forth in the rules mentioned in Article 

 VI. of the treaty, or recognized by the principles of 

 international law not inconsistent with such rules, 

 Mr. Adams, Viscount d'ltajuba, Mr. Stampfli, and 

 Count Sclopis answered " Yes," and Sir Alexander 

 Cockburn answered, " No." 



As a question of principle, the tribunal then unani- 

 mously declared that Great Britain should be con- 

 sidered as responsible for the tenders in the same 

 degree as for the vessels to which they were attached. 



The same question as had been put with regard to 

 the Florida, was next asked by Count Sclopis as to 

 the Tuscaloosa, a tender to the Alabama, and the 

 tribunal unanimously answered, " Yes." 



The same question was asked separately as to the 

 Clarence, the Tacony, and the Archer, as tenders to 

 the Florida, and Mr. Adams, Mr. Stampfli, Viscount 

 d'ltajuba, and Count Sclopis, answered, "Yes" for 

 each of these vessels, and Sir Alexander Cockburn 

 answered, " No " for each of these vessels. 



The tribunal then proceeded to the consideration 

 of the representation made by the agent of her Bri- 

 tannic Majesty at the last conference. 



Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis, as agent of the United 

 States, read the following statement in reply : 



