27th of the same month. Of its personnel Mr. Bancroft Davis has given the following account:1

"The Secretary of State was chairman on the side of the United States, and from the beginning to the end his was the inspiring, regulating, and dominating mind. He formulated on behalf of the United States the plan for the settlement of these long-standing and momentous differences. To the end he controlled the conduct of the American side in the contentions at Geneva, and infused courage into those who were beginning to wilt in face of the British outery against the American Case. He had the steadfast and loyal support of the President throughout, and it was of inestimable value.

"Next Mr. Fish upon the American side was the venerable Samuel Nelson, then the eldest justice in time of service, as well as in years, upon the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States. In politics he was opposed to the administration which invited him to serve his country as a member of this commission, but he cheerfully complied with its request. His counsel was always given when called for, and was never overruled. His work there closed an honorable and almost unparalleled career of nearly fifty years of judicial service. When the Court met again he was retired at his own request. "The other members of the commission on the American side were Robert C. Schenck, who had been appointed as minister to Great Britain in the place of Mr. Motley, but had not yet gone to his post; Ebenezer Rockwood Hoar, of Massachusetts, at one time a judge of the supreme judicial court of that State, and afterward Attorney-General of the United States at the beginning of General Grant's administration; and George H. Williams, of Oregon, who had just ceased to represent that State in the Senate of the United States.

"On the British side, at the head was Earl de Grey and Ripon (soon to be known as the Marquis of Ripon), a member of Mr. Gladstone's cabinet. Sir Stafford Henry Northcote, member of Parliament from South Devon, was selected from the opponents of Mr. Gladstone to be a member, as Mr. Justice Nelson was from the opposition to General Grant. Sir Edward Thornton, Her Majesty's envoy to the United States, held the same position in the British ranks that General Schenck held in ours. Professor Mountague Bernard, of All Souls' College, Oxford, and Sir John A. Macdonald, then premier of Canada, completed the list of British members.

"Lord Tenterden, the under secretary of state for foreign affairs, served as secretary on the part of Great Britain. I served in a similar capacity for the United States, as I held, at that time, a similar position in the Department of State to that held by Lord Tenterden in the foreign office."

Mr. Fish and the Alabama Claims, 70.

Procedure of the
Commission.

When the joint high commission was organized the British commission is gracefully proposed that Mr. Fish should act as presiding officer. This proposition was declined, with appropriate expressions of appreciation, on the ground that the appointment of such an officer would entail an unnecessary formality of procedure, the effect of which would be to obstruct the free and direct interchange of views and thus to retard the progress of the commission. Another preliminary point of procedure most judiciously determined by the commission was that the daily protocol of its acts should be merely formal, and should not contain any record either of the propositions made or of the discussions upon them, "so that as negotiations went on the process of give and take, in mutual concessions, should not be impeded by previous recorded action." Concerning the wisdom of this determination, which was signally demonstrated in the result, Earl Granville has borne this testimony: "They (the high commissioners) had thirtyseven long sittings, and I will venture to say that if every one

'Mr. Fish and the Alabama Claims, 70. The regular form of protocol was as follows:

XIV. PROTOCOL OF CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE HIGH COMMISSIONERS ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE HIGH COMMISSIONERS ON THE PART OF GREAT BRITAIN.

WASHINGTON, March 22, 1871.

The high commissioners having met, the protocol of the conference held on the 20th of March was read and confirmed.

The high commissioners then proceeded with the consideration of the matters referred to them.

The conference was adjourned to the 23d of March.

J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS.
TENTERDEN.

XV.-PROTOCOL OF CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE

HIGH COMMISSIONERS

ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE HIGH COMMISSIONERS ON THE PART OF GREAT BRITAIN.

WASHINGTON, March 23, 1871.

The high commissioners having met, the protocol of the conference held on the 22d of March was read and confirmed.

The high commissioners then proceeded with the consideration of the matters referred to them.

The conference was adjourned to the 25th of March.

J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS.

TENTERDEN.

of the ten commissioners, not to mention the two able secretaries, had thought it incumbent upon them to show their patriotism and power of debate for the admiration of the two hemispheres, the thirty-seven sittings would have been multiplied by at least ten times, while the result of the deliberations would have been absolutely nil." All who are familiar with the history of diplomatic negotiations, or who have had experience in conducting them, will acknowledge the force of Lord Granville's opinion. The proceedings of the joint high commission, though, from the number and complexity of the subjects to be treated, somewhat slow, yet, being free from formality and from set controversy, either oral or written, were characterized by directness, and by an effort to arrive at conclusions. "We are on the best of terms," wrote Sir Stafford Northcote, "with our colleagues, who are on their mettle, and evidently anxious to do the work in a gentlemanly way, and go straight to the point." "I feel sure," says Mr. Bancroft Davis, "that every American member would have heartily responded to these kindly words, and applied them to his British colleagues." The American commissioners, however, being near their government, were exempt from one inconvenience to which their British colleagues were subject. Since the introduction of the telegraph the discretion with which diplomatic agents at a distance from their government were formerly intrusted has materially been curtailed, and negotiators are required to make constant reports, and to act from hand to mouth under the direction of their official superiors at home. Referring to Earl de Grey's experience in this particular, Sir Stafford Northcote drops into rhyme:

"The U. S. Commissioners give him some trouble;

He don't blame them for that-its their duty, you know;
And his Cabinet colleagues, they give almost double-
They do it from love, and he likes it-so, so!" 4

London Times, June 13, 1871.

Life, Letters, and Diaries of Sir Stafford Northcote, II. 15.

3 Mr. Fish and the Alabama Claims, 73.

4Life, Letters, and Diaries of Sir Stafford Northcote, II. 13. Sir Stafford, referring to the constant interference of the home authorities by cable, observed that, if it should continue, the British commissioners would not be able to respond to their American colleagues' "How do you do?" without telegraphing home for instructions. (P. 15.)

Instructions of British
Commissioners.

The general instructions of the British commissioners, which were signed by Lord Granville, bear date the 9th of February 1871. They express an earnest desire that the negotiations "should be conducted in a mutually conciliatory disposition, and with unreserved frankness," and state that the "principal subjects" of negotiations "will probably be:

"1. The fisheries.

"2. The navigation of the River St. Lawrence, and privilege of passage through the Canadian canals.

"3. The transit of goods through Maine, and lumber trade down the River St. John.

"4. The Manitoba boundary.

"5. The claims on account of the Alabama, Shenandoah, and certain other cruisers of the so-styled Confederate States. "6. The San Juan water boundary.

"7. The claims of British subjects arising out of the civil

war.

"8. The claims of the people of Canada on account of the Fenian raids.

"9. The revision of the rules of maritime neutrality."

In regard to the fifth head, it was pointed out in the British instructions that the claims preferred on account of the Alabama stood "on a different footing to those arising from the captures made by the other cruisers, in so far as the Alabama escaped from Liverpool after evidence had been supplied by the United States minister of the service for which she was intended." Her Majesty's Government, it was stated, adhered to the principle of arbitration for the settlement of these claims, and would concur, if the United States proposed it, in jurists properly selected being made the arbitrators instead of a sovereign, as in the Johnson-Clarendon convention. At the same time, though arbitration was considered as the most appropriate mode of settlement, the commissioners were instructed that they were at liberty to transmit for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government any other proposal which might be suggested "for determining and closing the question of these claims." "For the escape of the Alabama and consequent injury to the commerce of the United States," the commissioners were authorized to express the regret of Her Majesty's Government "in such terms as would be agreeable to the Government of the United States and not inconsistent with the position hitherto maintained by Her Majesty's Government as

to the international obligations of neutral nations." The British commissioners were also instructed that "it would be desirable to take this opportunity to consider whether it might not be the interest of both Great Britain and the United States to lay down certain rules of international comity in regard to the obligations of maritime neutrality, not only to be acknowledged for observance in their future relations, but to be recommended for adoption to the other maritime powers."

Adverting in a supplementary instruction of the same day to the revision of the rules of maritime neutrality, Earl Granville said:

"I have to state to you that the extent to which a neutral country may be hereafter held justly liable for the dispatch, after notice, of a vessel under similar circumstances to those in the case of the Alabama, can not be precisely defined in the present stage of the controversy; but there are other points in which it may be convenient to you to be informed beforehand that this government are willing to enter into an agreement. These are:

"That no vessel employed in the military or naval service of any belligerent which shall have been equipped, fitted out, armed, or dispatched contrary to the neutrality of [a] neutral state, should be admitted into any port of that state.

"That prizes captured by such vessels, or otherwise captured in violation of the neutrality of any state, should, if brought within the jurisdiction of that state, be restored.

"That, in time of war, no vessel should be recognized as a ship of war, or received in any port of a neutral state as a ship of war, which has not been commissioned in some port in the actual occupation of the government by whom her commission is issued.

"The first of these rules has been incorporated into the foreign enlistment act, passed during the last year, and both the first and second were included in the report of the royal commission for inquiring into the neutrality laws."2

American Commissioners.

The instructions of the American commisInstructions of the sioners, which were signed by Mr. Fish and bore date the 22d of February, were brief; but they were accompanied by a confidential memorandum, embodying very full references to correspondence in the Department of State, "and to the history of several of the questions" which might be discussed by the commission, viz:

"1. The fisheries.

"2. The navigation of the St. Lawrence.

Blue Book, North America, No. 3 (1871); For. Rel. 1873, part 3, pp. 373–377. 2 Blue Book, North America, No. 3 (1871); For. Rel. 1873, part 3, p. 377.