any change of the words, as they had been decided upon by the Senate. He informed me that he had himself had a long discussion with the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate upon the subject, and that he was convinced, from the nature of that discussion, that it would be in vain to submit to the Senate the alterations now transmitted by your Lordship; for that it had been expressly intended by the Committee that the principle should be enlarged, and that the non-admittance of indirect claims should be extended to all such claims, and should not be limited to those of that particular class which were specified in the contention of Her Majesty's Government.

These views of the Committee had been fully supported by the Senate, who considered that the adoption of the wider principle with regard to indirect claims would be an equivalent for the consent given by the President that he would make no claim for indirect losses before the Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva. He was convinced, from his knowl edge of the feelings of the Senate upon the subject, that any further appeal to that body would have no effect whatever.

From a great deal that I have heard from other quarters, and from the extreme difficulty with which the sanction of the Senate has been obtained to the supplementary Article, even as modified by it, I cannot but acquiesce in Mr. Fish's opinion that any further reference to the Senate would be of no avail.

[From British Blue Book "North America," No. 9, (1872,) p. 30.]

No. 69.

Earl Granville to Sir E. Thornton.

FOREIGN OFFICE, May 28, 1872.

SIR: I asked General Schenck to-day whether he had received any instructions from his Government to inform her Majesty's Government of what was the scope and extent of the principle which is proposed by them to us in the draught Article which has been recommended by the Senate.

He answered that he had received none excepting those which were contained in the several telegrams which have been communicated to Her Majesty's Government, and he added that the general principle could only be laid down and the interpretation made when cases arise.

He referred me again for explanation of the position taken by the United States, including their view in relation to the necessity of a general rule with regard to indirect damages, to the remarks which he made to me and reduced to writing, and of which he furnished me a copy on the 10th of May. He added that the Article as passed by the Senate was connected with what he had therein stated.

I replied that I had no recollection of anything which he had written on the 10th of May, defining in any degree the scope or extent of such an Article as was now proposed.

Our conversation was interrupted by the necessity of my attending a Cabinet.

I am, &c.,

GRANVILLE.

No. 70.

Mr. Fish to General Schenck.

[Telegram.-Extract.]

WASHINGTON, May 29, 1872.

Your telegram of last night received this morning. We cannot understand the objections which Lord Granville raises. He raises new issues, but suggests nothing in the direction of an agreement. Criticism and objection without suggestions lead to no results, and do not give assurance of a desire to harmonize differing views.

You have informally suggested various modes of agreement, but Great Britain has met all with the demand to withdraw claims which we feel we were justified under the Treaty in presenting, while the obligations which Great Britain has in various forms proffered on her part have all been substantially the same, and have been vague, uncertain, ideal, and not likely ever to become available.

The Article proposed by the Senate is fair, candid, and reciprocal. This Government has endeavored to express its views, objects, and meaning with respect to the principle embodied therein in the correspondence which has taken place, and in the communications which you have had with Her Majesty's Minister of Foreign Affairs.

As the proposed Article, if it is to become a Treaty, must be signed and be submitted to the Senate for approval, but two days remain within which that approval can be had, and the Treaty forwarded to London to enable the ratifications to be exchanged in time to be presented to the Arbitrators at their meeting in June.

Further explanations of the views of the Government seem, therefore, impossible to be interchanged between here and London; but you may be able to explain these views as they have been communicated to you from this Department.

The President is extremely anxious to preserve a Treaty embodying and giving practical application to the doctrine of arbitration as a mode of settling international differences, and for that end has been willing to make large concessions.

You will call the attention of Her Majesty's Minister to the fact that unless the Treaty be signed and approved by the Senate, so that the President's ratification can leave here the day after to-morrow and go by Saturday's steamer, it cannot reach London in time to be there exchanged, and be presented to the Arbitrators at their meeting on 15th June.

The suggestion of another treaty to adjourn the meeting at Geneva seems impracticable. The Senate is in the last days of its session, with much important legislation pending, and every hour of its time preoccupied. In the absence of any indication of a disposition on the part of the British Government to suggest anything to which this Government could assent, it would be impossible to secure enough of the time of the Senate to agree to a treaty which promises only further delay and procrastination.

I regret not to see an indication of a desire or disposition on the part of the British Government to come to an agreement which will be honorable to this Government.

If the British Government has any proposals to make they will be fairly considered, with the most sincere desire of a frank, friendly, and honorable agreement. We neither ask nor will consent to anything else.

The tone of Lord Granville's notes seems to assume that the Senate and this Government are to accept what Great Britain may have sug. gested. Our view is very different.

FISH.

[From British Blue Book "North America," No. 9, (1872,) p. 32.]

No. 71.

Earl Granville to Sir E. Thornton.

FOREIGN OFFICE, May 29, 1872.

SIR: General Schenck called upon me early this morning, and informed me that he had received a telegram from Mr. Fish stating that the Government of the United States declined to agree to the alterations which Her Majesty's Government had proposed, as set forth in my letter to him of the 27th instant, in the Article of the supplementary Treaty. Mr. Fish says that, holding to the opinion that the claims for indirect losses are admissible before the Arbitrators, the establishment of the principle embodied in the Article, or assented to by the Senate, has been its object in adhering to that Article; and that the recognition of that principle by such supplementary Treaty will be the inducement for withdrawing the claims.

General Schenck further said that he last telegraphed to Washington last night the whole of the communication, containing the additional obeservation which I made to him in my letter of yesterday, but that he did not expect to receive any further telegram from his Government before early to-morrow morning. He understood that Congress had agreed not to adjourn till next Monday, the 3d of June. Before that day, and probably to-morrow, he expects to receive a reply to the proposal to extend the time for arbitration beyond the 15th of June, and he therefore thought he should not have to trouble me before noon to-morrow. I am, &c.,

GRANVILLE.

[From British Blue Book "North America," No. 9, (1872,) p. 32.]

No. 72.

Memorandum communicated by General Schenck, May 30, 1872.

I assume that your object, like ours, is to affirm the principle that neutrals are not to be held liable for indirect and remote damages which may be the result of a failure to observe neutral obligations, and to establish that principle, as a rule, to be observed between our two nations. Your proposed form of Article, as it was amended by the Senate, we think does that. You think it is too vague. We think your proposal, either as originally made, or as modified by your proposed amendment of the language of the Senate, would be altogether uncer tain as a rule in practice, confines itself to hypothetical cases which may never occur; and, instead of recognizing and applying the general principle, limits the rule to some three classes, only indirect claims, being those which are put forth by the United States in their Case at Geneva.

No. 73.

General Schenck to Mr. Fish.

[Telegram.]

LONDON, May 30, 1872. (Received 9 p. m.)

Your telegram of yesterday received and communicated to Lord Granville. He said he would confine himself to one remark, namely, that your statement at the beginning from the words "he raises," down to the word "views," was inexplicable to him. What had been the course they had pursued? They had at the request of the Government of the United States draughted an Article founded on an idea of that Government. The Government of the United States had amended that Article, and in answer they had not merely stated an objection to the amendment, but had draughted a re-amended Article for their consideration. He said he would not make any further argument until he had submitted to his colleagues the communication which had just been made to him. I stated that I did not wish to go into any argument, but would just state again what was my view of the present situation and difference between us, though it was but repeating former statements. I said to him, "I assume that your object, like ours, is to affirm the principle that neutrals are not to be held liable for indirect and remote damages, which may be the result of a failure to observe neutral obligations, and to establish that principle as a rule to be observed between our two nations. Your proposed form of Article, as it was amended by the Senate, we think does that. You think it is too vague. We think your proposal, either as originally made or as modified by your proposed amendment of the language of the Senate, would be altogether uncertain, as a rule in practice confines itself to hypothetical cases which may never occur, and, instead of recognizing and applying the general principle, limits the rule to some three classes only of indirect claims, being those which are put forward by the United States in their Case at Geneva." The Cabinet is now in session.

SCHENCK.

No. 243.]

No. 74.

General Schenck to Mr. Fish.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,

London, May 30, 1872. (Received June 11.) SIR: Inclosed with this I send copies of all written correspondence which has passed between Lord Granville and me since my No. 239. These notes taken in connection with the several telegrams which have passed between you and me, of which copies are also forwarded to you with another dispatch to-day, will bring up the history of what has taken place here for the last five days in relation to the proposal for a supplementary Treaty. Your telegram of the 28th, declining, on the part of the United States, to agree to the proposed altering of the supplementary Treaty, was received in the night and communicated to Lord Granville very early yesterday morning. I would give you, with these documents, some narrative and comments, and it was my intention to

do So, but your long telegram in answer to the observations of Lord Granville, contained in his note which I telegraphed to you in full at midnight of the 28th, has this moment arrived and requires to be deciphered and to have my immediate attention, so that it will not be possible to give any other communication by the mail which is made upfor Queenstown to-day.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

ROBERT C. SCHENCK.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 74.]

Earl Granville to General Schenck.

FOREIGN OFFICE, May 27, 1872.

SIR: I instructed Sir E. Thornton to communicate to Mr. Fish the accompanying form of preamble to which Her Majesty's Government were prepared to agree in case a convention should be concluded embodying the draught Article. I have learned from Sir E. Thornton that Mr. Fish would prefer the omission of the words "in order that the same may be communicated to the Tribunal of Arbitration, appointed under the first article of the Treaty signed at Washington on the 8th of May, 1871, for the guidance of the proceedings of that Tribunal," and I have this day informed Sir E. Thornton that he may tell Mr. Fish that Her Majesty's Government will not insist on the words which he desires to omit in the preamble, if he will give Sir E. Thornton an assurance in writing that the Government of the United States will agree to the form of note which I proposed, and of which I sent you a copy on the 20th instant, communicating the Convention on the part of the two Governments to the Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva. I have to add that Sir E. Thornton has a general full power enabling him to sign a Convention, and instructions to do so if the proposals contained in this, and in my other letters of this day's date, are agreed to.

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient, humble servant,

GRANVILLE.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 74.]

Proposed preamble to supplemental Treaty.

Her Majesty the Queeen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the United States of America, having resolved to conclude a Convention in the terms of the Articles hereinafter set forth, in order that the same may be communicated to the Tribunal of Arbitration appointed under the first Article of the Treaty signed at Washington, on the 8th of May, 1871, for the guidance of the proceedings of that Tribunal, have named as their Plenipotentiaries, that is to say—

[Inclosure 3 in No. 74.]

Earl Granville to General Schenck.

FOREIGN OFFICE, LONDON, May 27, 1872. SIR: I have lost no time in laying before the Cabinet the telegraphic dispatch from Mr. Fish, which you communicated to me this afternoon, informing you of the result of the deliberations of the Senate on the draught Article submitted for their advice by the President of the United States. It appeared from this dispatch that the Senate had agreed to advise and consent to the adoption of the proposed article, with the substitution for the third and fourth paragraphs, of two paragraphs, as follows:

"And whereas the Government of the United States has contended that the said claims were included in the Treaty; and whereas both Governments adopt for the future the principle that claims for remote or indirect losses should not be admitted as