Page images


From when and

to whom.




1866. 1286 Mr. Adams to Dec. 7 | Has received from Lord Stanley copies of 644 Mr. Seward.

his dispatches to Sir F. Bruce, in reference
to reopening negotiations upon the Ala-

bama claims. 1885

Mr. Seward to Dec. 10 Has received No. 1275. Incloses extracts | 644
Mr. Adams.

from the President's message, which ex-
presses the sentiment of the country on

the claims question.

1867. Sir F. Bruce to | Jan. 7) Transmits copy of his note to Mr. Seward, 645 Lord Stanley.

inclosing Lord Stanley's dispatches of the 30th of November. Lord Stanley, in his first dispatch, recounts the history of the Sumtër, Florida, Alabama, and Shenandoah, and defends their reception in British ports. He then justifies the recognition of rebel belligerency on the ground of the President's proclamation of blockade, and quotes a Supreme Court decision in support of his position. The foreign enlistment act, he claims, was identical with that of the United States. Its evasion by the Alabama could not have been prevented, and sufficient evidence was lacking to have detained the other vessels. The British government, however, proposed an alteration in the laws of both countries, and the United States replied that their law was believed to be sufficient. The provisions contained in the latter law, which are not to be found in that of Great Britain, would have been ineffectual if adopted. The case of the prompt suppression of the Fenians could not fairly be cited, as their movements were all public and evidence against them easily procured. In his second dispatch of November 30, Lord Stanley proposes to submit the question of the Alabama claims to arbitration, excluding the question of premature recognition, and all other claims to a

mixed commission. Mr. Seward to Jan. 12 Acknowledges the receipt of his note, cover 654 Sir F. Bruce.

ing copy of Lord Stanley's dispatch, and

has replied through Mr. Adams. 1906 Mr. Seward to Jan. 12 Has received from Sir Frederick Bruce Lord | 655 1 Mr. Adams.

Stanley's review of his No. 1835. Mr. Seward renews his argument based on the reception and sale of the Sumter in British ports, and the outfit of the Alabama and other vessels, the several parts of which were completed in England, although joined together outside of British jurisdiction. Their character was essentially British. In regard to recognition of belligerency, the decision of the Supreme Court referred to does not admit that the proclamation of blockade recognized the existence of a civil war. The recognition was premature and unnecessary. Mr. Seward gives a history of the blockade proclamation, and the recognition of belligerency by Great Britain, and says that the latter proceeding and not the


From whom and

to whom.





Jan. 14.

[ocr errors]

Sir F. Bruce to

Lord Stanley. Lord Stanley to

Sir F. Bruce.

Jan. 24

[blocks in formation]

former stamped the insurrection as a civil war. Every government has the right to close ports in insurrection against it, and doing so does not confer belligerent rights upon the insurgents. The plea that the recognition of belligerency was necessary for the protection of British interests is invalid, as the British government could not directly protect their subjects in America. The blockade could have been acknowledged without recognition, as las been uniformly the practice of the United States. Mr. Seward again contrasts the conduct of Great Britain with our own toward the Fenians. While the United States think their claims should be paid at once, they will agree to submit them to arbitration, but cannot except from consideration any question which has been

raised in the correspondence. Incloses copy of Mr. Seward's note of Jan

uary 12. Approves his note to Mr. Seward, communi 666

cating proposals for settlement of Alabama

claims. Transmits copies of a volume of correspond 666

ence between himself and Lord Russell,

printed by the Foreign Office. Incloses note to Lord Stanley, transmitting 667

copy of No. 1906. Has received copy of Mr. Seward's dispatch, 667

which will receive full consideration. Transmits copy of Mr. Seward's reply to his 668 dispatch of January 30. Without desiring to revive the controversy, Lord Stanley insists that the President was responsible for the recognition of rebel belligerency by foreign powers. Her Majesty's government cannot consent to refer the question of premature recognition, but propose limited arbitration in reference to the Alabama claims, and a mixed

commission to consider all other claims. Refers to growing desire in America for set- | 670

tlement of Alabama claims, and danger of delay. The House of Representatives passed a bill which failed in the Senate, to alter the neutrality laws so as to agree with those of Great Britain, and also a resolution forbidding claims upon the Uniter States to be allowed before being submitted to Congress. Lord Stanley's proposal of separate consideration of the Alabama

claims cannot be accepted. Has had an interview with Lord Stanley, for | 671

the purpose of having a definiteunderstanding of the difficulties in the way of the settlement of existing questions. On learning, however, that the latter's proposal of March 9 had not yet been submitted to Mr. Seward, Mr. Adams refrained from pressing immediate action. Mr. Adams doubts the expediency of insisting that the ques

1952 | Mr. Seward to Mar. 28

Mr. Adams.


1355 / Mr. Adams to | April 15

Mr. Seward.


No. 1

From whom and

to whom.





tion of premature recognition should be
submitted to arbitration. The propositions
in Congress if adopted would weaken our

position. 1965 | Mr. Seward to | April 16 The British minister has presented Lord | 672 Mr. Adams.

Stanley's proposal of March 9. The United
States cannot agree to a separate arbitra-

tion of the Alabama claims. 1971 ...... do........ May 2 Has received No. 1355. The President sees 673

no prospect of coming to an agreement
with the British government on the claims
question. The people still retain their
sense of the injuries following the un-
friendly recognition of rebel belligerency,
and would not permit that question to be

waived in the settlement of their claims. 1361 | Mr. Adams to | May 2 Has received No. 1965, and communicated its 674 Mr. Seward.

contents to Lord Stanley. The latter agreed that the government having consented to arbitration for the Alabama claims, might easily submit the less important claims to the same tribunal ; but the difficulty would be to find an umpire willing to decide upon so many unimportant questions. As Mr. Seward in his dispatch had not noticed Lord Stanley's exception of the recognition question from consideration, Mr. Adams alluded to it as making an essential point in Lord Stan· ley's reply. Mr. Adams thought itinexpe

dient to print the recent correspondence. Lord Stanley to | May 2 | Communicates the substance of Mr. Seward's 676 Sir F. Bruce.

reply to his dispatch of March 9, just re

ceived from Mr. Adams. 1986 | Mr. Seward to | May 20 | Has received No. 1361. No limitation upon 676 Mr. Adams.

the arbitration of the Alabama claims can

be consented to.
Lord Stanley to May 24 The term “Alabama claims” in the proposal 677
Sir F. Bruce.

for arbitration was meant to cover claims
arising from the depredations of the Ala-
bama, Florida, Georgia, and Shenandoah.
These claims depend upon the solution of
an abstract question of responsibility, and
are proper subjects for arbitration, while
the general claims are diversified in their
nature, and their decision by an arbiter
would be impracticable. Her Majesty's
government would be glad to learn that
the question of premature recognition was

waived by the United States.
Mr. Seward to July 27 | Will take the President's directions and | 678
Sir F. Bruce.

reply to Lord Stanley's letter upon his re

turn to Washington. 2037 Mr. Seward to Aug. 12 In reply to Lord Stanley's dispatch of May 679 Mr. Adams.

24, the United States understand the Ala-
bama claims to include all those arising
from the depredations of the Alabama or
similar vessels, but would consider itself
at liberty to urge the actual proceedings
and relations of Great Britain, her officers
and subjects, toward the United States in
regard to the rebellion, as affecting the
question of her moral responsibility for
that class of claims. The United States


From whom and

to whom.





also understand that Lord Stanley propo-
ses to submit the question of moral respon-
sibility to an arbiter, and if it should be
decided in favor of the United States, then
the individual claims involved, together
with all claims of a general nature, are to
go to a mixed commission for adjudication.
The United States only agree that the
principle (of arbitration) should be followed

for all classes of claims.
Lord Stanley to Sept. 10 Communicates the substance of Mr. Seward's 680
Sir F. Bruce.

letter of August 12, received from Mr.

Adams. 1447 Mr. Adams to Sept. 13 Has read No. 2037 to Lord Stanley, who 681 Mr. Seward.

wished to consider its terms before an-
swering definitely, and said that some
limit must be applied to the arbitration,
or no umpire could be found. Lord Stan-
ley suggested either of the German powers,
and expressed strong hopes of the speedy

settlement of the difficulties. 2060 Mr. Seward to Sept. 25 Has received No. 1447. Lord Stanley's sen- | 682 Mr. Adams.

timents coincide with his own. 1474 | Mr. Adams to Nov. 2 Has had a conference with Lord Stanley, in 682 Mr. Seward.

which the latter expressed his opinion
that a settlement of the claims question
could be reached without much difficulty,
but that the point of pride about the right
of recognition was so great, even with our
best friends in England, that it could not

be submitted to arbitration. 2093 | Mr. Seward to Nov. 16 The sentiment of the American people is 683 Mr. Adams.

equally as unanimous as that of the Eng-
lish, and would not permit the question of

premature recognition to be waived.
Lord Stanley to | Nov. 16 In answer to Mr. Seward's letter of August ( 683
Mr. Ford.

12, her Majesty's government cannot refer
to arbitration the justice of their proceed-
ings in recognizing the rebels as belliger-
ents. The only point for arbitration in
regard to the Alabama claims is the moral
responsibility of Great Britain for viola-
tion of its neutrality, on the assumption
that war actually existed between the
United States and the insurgents. This
question is entirely different from those
involved in the general claims, and should
be submitted to a different tribunal. Lord
Stanley hopes that the United States will
accept his previous proposition of "limited
reference to arbitration of the Alabama
claims, and adjudication, by a inixed com-

mission, of general claims." 2102 | Mr. Seward to | Nov. 29 Has received from Mr. Ford Lord Stanley's 685 Mr. Adams.'

proposal of November 16, and, as it in-
volves the abandoning of our position in
regard to premature recognition, it cannot

be entertained. 2103 ...... do ......... Dec. 2 Directs Mr, Adams to give Lord Stanley a | 686

copy of No. 2102. 1488 | Mr. Adams to | Dec. 4 Transmits published correspondence between 686 Mr. Seward.

himself and Lord Stanley in reference to
claims. Has received No. 2093, and, from

[ocr errors]


Lord Stanley's tone in connection with it,
is convinced that further negotiation is

1503 Mr. Adams to Dec. 24 Had left copy of No. 2102 with Lord Stanley,
Mr. Seward.

and supposed the negotiation to be over.
Loril Stanley, however, showed him copy
of a note from Mr. Seward to Mr. Ford,
stating that no more proposals could come
from his government, but suggesting the
possibility of Lord Stanley's proposing to
lump all matters at issue between the two
countries and treat them in one negotia-
tion. Lord Stanley said that the difficulty.
would be that private claimants would not
want their claims bargained away against
points in which they were not interested,
to which Mr. Adams assented. Lord Stan-
ley promised to give the suggestion full

2118 Mr. Seward to Jan. 13 | Has received No. 1503. His suggestion to 688 Mr. Adams.

Mr. Ford did not refer simply to mutual
pecuniary war claims, but was meant to
include the San Juan boundary. the natur-
alization, extradition, fishing, and all
other questions upon which the two coun-
tries held different views. A convention
proposed by Lord Stanley upon all these
questions would lay a broad foundation for

friendly and satisfactory relations..
Lord Stanley to Feb. 15 Mr. Adams has communicated parts of a | 689
Mr. Thornton.

dispatch from Mr. Seward, expressing a
desire for the settlement of various inter-
national questions, (not including the
Canadian reciprocity treaty,) and suggest-
ing that all such questions should be con-
sidered at one conference. Lord Stanley
desires further development of this idea,
and information as to Mr. Seward's views

of the nature of the conference. 1539 Mr. Adams to | Feb. 18 Has communicated contents of No. 2118 to 690 Mr. Seward.

Lord Stanley, wlio desires further explana-
tion of the suggestion of a general confer-
ence. His lordship will not stand on

ceremony if a settlement can be effected. 2141 Mr. Seward to Mar. 7 Has received No. 1539, and approves Mr. 690 Mr. Adams.

Adams's proceedings. Further considera-
tion of the claims question will be post-
poned until the termination of proceedings

in regard to naturalization.
1549 Mr. Adams to | Mar. Va Transmits published debate in Commons in
Mr. Seward.


relation to questions at issue between the
United States and Great Britain. The
failure of negotiations is regretted, and
Parliament is prepared to submit tlie

claims to decision of a commission. 2144 | Mr. Seward to Mar. 23 Has received No. 1549. The change in Brit 691 Mr. Adams.

ish opinion is gratifying. Has suggested
to Mr. Thornton plans for settling the
naturalization and San Juan questions
preparatory to touching the claims ques-

tion. 2 Nir. Seward to July 20 Instructs Mr. Johnson to attempt a settle 692 Mr. Johnson.

ment of the naturalization and San Juan


« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »