1906

Sir F. Bruce to
Lord Stanley.

Mr. Seward to
Sir F. Bruce.

1867. Jan. 7

Has received from Lord Stanley copies of 644
his dispatches to Sir F. Bruce, in reference
to reopening negotiations upon the Ala-
bama claims.

Has received No. 1275. Incloses extracts
from the President's message, which ex-
presses the sentiment of the country on
the claims question.

644

Transmits copy of his note to Mr. Seward, 645
inclosing Lord Stanley's dispatches of the
30th of November. Lord Stanley, in his
first dispatch, recounts the history of the
Sumter, Florida, Alabama, and Shenan-
doah, and defends their reception in Brit-
ish ports. He then justifies the recogni-
tion of rebel belligerency on the ground
of the President's proclamation of block-
ade, 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 eva-
sion by the Alabama could not have been
prevented, and sufficient evidence was
lacking to have detained the other vessels.
The British government, however, pro-
posed 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 suppres-
sion of the Fenians could not fairly be
cited, as their movements were all public
and evidence against them easily pro-
cured. In his second dispatch of Novem-
ber 30, Lord Stanley proposes to submit
the question of the Alabama claims to arbi-
tration, excluding the question of prema-
ture recognition, and all other claims to a
mixed commission.

Jan. 12 Acknowledges the receipt of his note, cover-
ing copy of Lord Stanley's dispatch, and
has replied through Mr. Adams.

Mr. Seward to Jan. 12 Has received from Sir Frederick Bruce Lord
Mr. Adams.

Stanley's review of his No. 1835. Mr.
Seward renews his argument based on the
reception and sale of the Sumter in Brit-
ish ports, and the outfit of the Alabama
and other vessels, the several parts of
which were completed in England,
although joined together outside of Brit-
ish jurisdiction. Their character was es-
sentially 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.
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

Mr.

654

655

No.

From whom and
to whom.

Date.

Subject.

Page.

Sir F. Bruce to
Lord Stanley.
Lord Stanley to
Sir F. Bruce.

1306 Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward.

1867.

Jan. 14.

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 Amer-
ica. The blockade could have been ac-
knowledged without recognition, as has
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 con-
sideration any question which has been
raised in the correspondence.

Incloses copy of Mr. Seward's note of Jan-
uary 12.

Jan. 24 Approves his note to Mr. Seward, communi-
cating proposals for settlement of Alabama
claims.

Jan. 25 Transmits copies of a volume of correspond-
ence between himself and Lord Russell,
printed by the Foreign Office.
Incloses note to Lord Stanley, transmitting
copy of No. 1906.

Lord Stanley to
Mr. Adams.

Lord Stanley to
Sir F. Bruce.

Jan. 30
Jan. 30
Mar. 9

1952

666

666

666

667

668

Has received copy of Mr. Seward's dispatch, | 667
which will receive full consideration.
Transmits copy of Mr. Seward's reply to his
dispatch of January 30. Without de-
siring to revive the controversy, Lord
Stanley insists that the President was re-
sponsible for the recognition of rebel
belligerency by foreign powers. Her Maj-
esty's government cannot consent to refer
the question of premature recognition,
but propose limited arbitration in refer-
ence to the Alabama claims, and a mixed
commission to consider all other claims.

Mr. Seward to Mar. 28 Refers to growing desire in America for set-
Mr. Adams.

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 resolu-
tion forbidding claims upon the United
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
the purpose of having a definite understand-
ing of the difficulties in the way of the
settlement of existing questions. On learn-
ing, however, that the latter's proposal of
March 9 had not yet been submitted to Mr.
Seward, Mr. Adams refrained from press-
ing immediate action. Mr. Adams doubts
the expediency of insisting that the ques-

670

671

1965

Mr. Seward to April 16
Mr. Adams.

1971

do.

May 2

1361 Mr. Adams to May Mr. Seward.

2

1986

2037

Lord Stanley to May
Sir F. Bruce.

2

tion of premature recognition should be
submitted to arbitration. The propositions
in Congress if adopted would weaken our
position.
The British minister has presented Lord
Stanley's proposal of March 9. The United
States cannot agree to a separate arbitra-
tion of the Alabama claims.
Has received No. 1355. The President sees
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.
Has received No. 1965, and communicated its
contents to Lord Stanley. The latter
agreed that the government having con-
sented to arbitration for the Alabama
claims, might easily submit the less im-
portant claims to the same tribunal; but
the difficulty would be to find an umpire
willing to decide upon so many unimport-
ant questions. As Mr. Seward in his dis-
patch 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 it inexpe-
dient to print the recent correspondence.
Communicates the substance of Mr. Seward's
reply to his dispatch of March 9, just re-
ceived from Mr. Adams.

Mr. Seward to May 20 Has received No. 1361. No limitation upon
Mr. Adams.

Lord Stanley to May 24
Sir F. Bruce.

Mr. Seward to July 27

Sir F. Bruce.

672

673

674

676

676

the arbitration of the Alabama claims can
be consented to.
The term "Alabama claims" in the proposal 677
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.

Will take the President's directions and 678
reply to Lord Stanley's letter upon his re-
turn to Washington.

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

Mr. Adams.

24, the United States understand the Alabama 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

No.

From whom and
to whom.

Date.

Subject.

Page.

1867.

Lord Stanley to Sept. 10
Sir F. Bruce.

1447

Mr. Adams to Sept. 13
Mr. Seward.

2060

Mr. Seward to Sept. 25
Mr. Adams.

1474

Mr. Adams to Nov.

2

2093

Mr. Seward.

૭

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.
Communicates the substance of Mr. Seward's
letter of August 12, received from Mr.
Adams.

Has read No. 2037 to Lord Stanley, who
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.

Has received No. 1447. Lord Stanley's sen-
timents coincide with his own.

Has had a conference with Lord Stanley, in
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.

Mr. Seward to Nov. 16 The sentiment of the American people is
Mr. Adams.

equally as unanimous as that of the Eng-
lish, and would not permit the question of
premature recognition to be waived.

680

681

682

682

683

In answer to Mr. Seward's letter of August 683
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 mixed com-
mission, of general claims."

Has received from Mr. Ford Lord Stanley's 685
proposal of November 16, and, as it in-
volves the abandoning of our position in
regard to premature recognition, it cannot
be entertained.

1503

Mr. Adams
Mr. Seward.

to Dec. 24

1868.

2118

Mr. Seward to Jan. 13
Mr. Adams.

Lord Stanley to
Mr. Thornton.

Feb. 15

1539

Mr.

Adams to Feb. 18
Mr. Seward.

2141

Mr. Seward to Mar.
Mr. Adams.

7

1549

Mr.

Adams to Mar. 7
Mr. Seward.

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

Had left copy of No. 2102 with Lord Stanley, 686
and supposed the negotiation to be over.
Lord 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
consideration.

688

689

Has received No. 1503. His suggestion to
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.
Mr. Adams has communicated parts of a
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.
Has communicated contents of No. 2118 to
Lord Stanley, who 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.
Has received No. 1539, and approves Mr. 690
Adams's proceedings. Further considera-
tion of the claims question will be post-
poned until the termination of proceedings
in regard to naturalization.
Transmits published debate in Commons in
relation to questions at issue between the
United States and Great Britain. The
failure of negotiations is regretted, and
Parliament is prepared to submit the
claims to decision of a commission.

2144 Mr. Seward to Mar. 23 Has received No. 1549. The change in Brit-
Mr. Adams.

2 Mr. Seward to July 20 Mr. Johnson.

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.
Instructs Mr. Johnson to attempt a settle-
ment of the naturalization and San Juan

690

691

691

692