each of the said vessels. In case the Tribunal find that Great Britain has failed to fulfil any duty or duties as aforesaid, it may, if it think proper, proceed to award a sum in gross to be paid by Great Britain to the United States for all the claims referred to it; and in such case the gross sum so awarded shall be paid in coin by the Government of Great Britain to the Government of the United States, at Washington, within twelve months after the date of the award.

"The award shall be in duplicate, one copy whereof shall be delivered to the agent of the United States for his Government, and the other copy shall be delivered to the agent of Great Britain for his Government.

"ARTICLE VIII.

"Each Government shall pay its own agent and provide for the proper remuneration of the counsel employed by it and of the Arbitrator appointed by it, and for the expense of preparing and submitting its case to the Tribunal. All other expenses connected with the arbitration shall be defrayed by the two Governments in equal moieties.

"ARTICLE IX.

"The Arbitrators shall keep an accurate record of their proceedings, and may appoint and employ the necessary officers to assist them.

"ARTICLE X.

"In case the Tribunal finds that Great Britain has failed to fulfil any duty or duties as aforesaid, and does not award a sum in gross, the High Contracting Parties agree that a Board of Assessors shall be appointed to ascertain and determine what claims are valid, and what amount or amounts shall be paid by Great Britain to the United States on account of the liability arising from such failure, as to each vessel, according to the extent of such liability as decided by the Arbitrators.

"The Board of Assessors shall be constituted as follows: One member thereof shall be named by the President of the United States, one member thereof shall be named by Her Britannic Majesty; and one member thereof shall be named by the Representative at Washington of His Majesty the King of Italy; and in case of a vacancy happening from any cause it shall be filled in the same manner in which the original appointment was made.

"As soon as possible after such nominations the Board of Assessors shall be organized in Washington, with power to hold their sittings there, or in New York, or in Boston. The members thereof shall severally subscribe a solemn declaration that they will impartially and carefully examine and decide, to the best of their judgment and according to justice and equity,

all matters submitted to them, and shall forthwith proceed, under such rules and regulations as they may prescribe, to the investigation of the claims which shall be presented to them by the Government of the United States, and shall examine and decide upon them in such order and manner as they may think proper, but upon such evidence or information only as shall be furnished by or on behalf of the Governments of the United States and of Great Britain respectively. They shall be bound to hear on each separate claim, if required, one person on behalf of each Government, as counsel or agent. A majority of the Assessors in each case shall be sufficient for a decision.

"The decision of the Assessors shall be given upon each claim in writing, and shall be signed by them respectively and dated.

"Every claim shall be presented to the Assessors within six months from the day of their first meeting, but they may, for good cause shown, extend the time for the presentation of any claim to a further period not exceeding three months.

"The Assessors shall report to each Government at or before the expiration of one year from the date of their first meeting the amount of claims decided by them up to the date of such report; if further claims then remain undecided, they shall make a further report at or before the expiration of two years from the date of such first meeting; and in case any claims remain undetermined at that time, they shall make a final report within a further period of six months.

"The report or reports shall be made in duplicate, and one copy thereof shall be delivered to the Secretary of State of the United States, and one copy thereof to the Representative of Her Britannic Majesty at Washington.

"All sums of money which may be awarded under this Article shall be payable at Washington, in coin, within twelve months after the delivery of each report.

"The Board of Assessors may employ such clerks as they shall think necessary.

"The expenses of the Board of Assessors shall be borne equally by the two Governments, and paid from time to time, as may be found expedient, on the production of accounts certified by the Board. The remuneration of the Assessors shall also be paid by the two Governments in equal moieties in a similar manner.

"ARTICLE XI.

"The High Contracting Parties engage to consider the result of the proceedings of the Tribunal of Arbitration, and of the Board of Assessors, should such Board be appointed, as a full, perfect, and final settlement of all the claims herein before referred to; and further engage that every such claim, whether the same may or may not have been presented to the notice of, made, preferred, or laid before the Tribunal or Board, shall,

from and after the conclusion of the proceedings of the Tribunal or Board, be considered and treated as finally settled, barred, and thenceforth inadmissible."

Other Subjects
Included.

Senate.

Besides the Alabama claims, the treaty settlement included the claims of citizens of the United States (other than the Alabama claims) and of subjects of Great Britain growing out of the civil war in the United States (Articles XII.-XVII.); the North Atlantic fisheries (Articles XVIII.-XXV., XXXII., XXXIII.); the navigation of certain rivers and canals and of Lake Michigan (Articles XXVI.-XXVIII.); the system of bonded transit (Articles XXIX., XXX., XXXIII.); certain features of the coasting trade (Articles XXX., XXXIII.); the exemption from duty of lumber cut on American territory watered by the St. John and floated down that river to the United States (Article XXXI.), and the San Juan boundary (Articles XXXIV-XLII). The forty-third article related to the exchange of ratifications. On the 10th of May the treaty was sent to Approval of the the Senate, and, together with the protocols of the proceedings of the joint high commission, was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.1 Of this committee Simon Cameron was now chairman, having been substituted for Mr. Sumner in that position in the preceding March. Mr. Sumner, however, cast his vote for the treaty. Indeed, an examination of its provisions in relation to the Alabama question will show that they substantially meet the requirements of his speech on the Johnson-Clarendon convention. They contain an expression of regret "for the escape, under whatever circumstances, of the Alabama and other vessels from British ports, and for the depredations committed by those vessels;" they embrace a definition of the rules of maritime neutrality; and they secure, at least as they were construed by the Government of the United States, an arbitral adjustment of all claims, whether individual or national, "growing out of acts committed by the aforesaid vessels, and generically known as the Alabama claims." The British commissioners, though their government had ordered them to leave Washington "as soon as possible after the treaty was signed," deemed it prudent to await the discussions of the

The text of the treaty was surreptitiously published in the New York Tribune on the morning of the 11th of May. (S. Rep. 2, 42 Cong., special sess.)

Senate upon it. It was formally approved by that body on the 24th of May.

The successful conclusion of the negotiations Sensation of Relief. brought a sensation of relief in England as well as in the United States. Mr. Moran, the chargé d'affaires ad interim of the United States at London, wrote, on the 25th of May, that there was the most widespread feeling in regard to the treaty as a measure to close all sources of dispute between the two countries. He said there would be "some opposition to the convention on the part of Lord Russell," but that it would be "rather personal than a matter of principle;" and that nothing he could say would prevent the acceptance of the treaty.2

*

But while Lord Russell was more radical Criticism of the than others in his hostility to the treaty, he Treaty. was not alone in England in his criticism of it. It was suggested that the second of the three rules of neutral duty which it prescribed, forbidding a neutral "to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or waters * for the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms," would prevent the sale by a neutral, or in a neutral country, of arms and other military supplies in the ordinary course of commerce. The apprehensions on this subject, which were shared by Sir Roundell Palmer, were deemed so serious as to lead Earl de Grey to bring the matter unofficially to the attention of General Schenck, who had then assumed charge of the American legation in London. Mr. Fish, however, met the suggestion by declaring that the President understood and insisted that the rule did not prevent the open sale of arms or military supplies in the ordinary course of commerce, as they were sold to the United States in England during the civil war, or in the United States or in England during the Franco-German war; and he said that the United States, in bringing the rules to the knowledge of other powers and asking their assent to them, as the contracting parties had agreed to do, would insist that such was their proper meaning.*

Life, etc., of Sir Stafford Northcote, 16, 23.

2 MSS. Dept. of State.

3 Telegram, General Schenck to Mr. Fish, June 9, 1871. The ministry had received notice that they would be interrogated in Parliament on this point.

4 Telegram, Mr. Fish to General Schenck, June 10, 1871.

But the principal ground of attack upon Question as to the the treaty was the declaration it contained by "Three Rules." the British commissioners, that the rules of neutrality which it set forth, not only for the regulation of the future conduct of the contracting parties, but also for the determination of Great Britain's liability for the Alabama claims, were not assented to by Her Majesty's Government as a statement of principles of international law in force at the time when the claims arose. On the 12th of June 1871 Earl Russell moved, in the House of Lords, that an address be presented to Her Majesty praying that she would be pleased "not to sanction or to ratify any convention for the settlement of the Alabama claims," by which Her Majesty would "approve of any conditions, terms, or rules by which the arbitrator or abitrators" would "be bound, other than the law of nations and the municipal law of the United Kingdom existing and in force at the period of the late civil war in the United States when the alleged depredations took place." He declared that to pay compensation for acts which were not against the law of nations at the time of their commission looked like "paying a sort of tribute in order to buy peace." He also criticised the provisions of the treaty relating to the fisheries, as well as the omission to provide for the adjustment of claims for the Fenian outrages.

On the other hand, Earl Granville declared that the three rules were completely covered by the then recent act amending the British neutrality laws. This act, he said, even went further than the rules; nor was there any country in the world that had a "greater interest" than Great Britain "in escaping such depredations as were committed by the Alabama." Earl Derby thought that the treaty was a poor one, but that it should be accepted as an accomplished fact. Earl de Grey considered that the government had "accomplished a signal benefit in binding the American government by rules" which were "just and reasonable in themselves, and from which, in case of future wars, no country on the face of the earth" was "likely to derive so much benefit as England herself." After further debate the motion of Earl Russell was put, and was negatived without a division. The Times, commenting on the debate, said that the conclusion which must be come to, after this full discussion, was that "the solid advantages" to be derived from the treaty greatly overbalanced its deficiencies.1

1 June 13, 1871.