ALABAMA CLAIMS. 39 



deuce, for the clecision of the Tribunal of ArLitrntlou, 

 and could not be a question ailecting the integrity or 

 force of the Treaty. 



No expression or even intimation of the question of 

 " direct or indirect" appears on the face of the Treaty. 



And, in the long di])lon)atic correspondence which 

 ensued ou this subject, it was conclusively demon- 

 strated by j\[r. Fish, and was, in effect, admitted by 

 Lord Grai..ville, that no agreement, promise, or nnder- 

 standing existed on the part of the Commissioners to 

 qualify the clear and explicit language of the Treaty. 



CAUSE OF THIS AGrfATION. 



Hence we miirlit well infer or believe that tlie su- 

 perficial or apparent question, which so agitated jk'O- 

 pie of high intelligence and practical sense like the 

 Entrlish, was not tlie real or true one. It was not. 

 And, in order to understand the causes of tlie storm 

 of discussion wliich broke over Enirland wlien tlie 

 tenor of the American Case came to be fully apj'>re- 

 hended there, and of the real consternation which 

 seemed to prevail on the subject, it is necessary to 

 take into consideration certain facts wholly independ- 

 ent of the American Case and the Treaty. 



On occ.'.sion of the rejection by the United States 

 of the Johnson-Clarendon Treaty, with ]\Ir. Sumner's 

 speech as a commentary on that act, England canie 

 distinctly to comprehend, what she had been fre- 

 quently told before but would not believe, that the 

 United States attributed the prolongation of our Civ- 

 il War largely to her premature recognition of the 



