ALABAMA CLAIMS. 39 
dence, for the decision of the Tribunal of Arbitration, 
and could not be a question affecting 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 diplomatic correspondence which. 
ensued on this subject, it was conclusively demon- 
strated by Mr. Fish, and was, in effect, admitted by 
Lord Granville, that no agreement, promise, or under- 
standing existed on the part of the Commissioners to 
qualify the clear and explicit language of the Treaty. 
CAUSE O¥ THIS AGITATION. 
Hence we might well infer or believe that the su- 
perficial or apparent question, which so agitated peo- 
ple of high intelligence and practical sense like the 
English, was not the real or true one. It was not. 
And, in order to understand the causes of the storm 
of discussion which broke over England when the 
tenor of the American Case came to be fully appre- 
hended there, and of the real consternation which 
seemed to prevail on the subject, it is necessary fo 
take into consideration certain facts wholly independ- 
ent of the American Case and the Treaty. 
On occasion of the rejection by the United States 
of the Johnson-Clarendon Treaty, with Mr. Sumner’s 
speech as a commentary on that act, England came 
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 
