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.

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.

Approval of the
Senate.

On the 10th of May the treaty was sent to the Senate, and, together with the protocols of the proceedings of the joint high commission, was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.' 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.

On the 4th of August 1871 Sir C. Addersley moved in the House of Commons for the production of copies of any instructions given by Her Majesty's ministers to the commissioners at Washington during the negotiations. This motion was withdrawn after a debate in which the treaty was defended by Mr. Gladstone, Sir Stafford Northcote, and Sir Roundell Palmer. In regard to the three rules, Sir Roundell said that he did not think that they went beyond the liability imposed on Great Britain by her own municipal law.'

bitration.

On the 11th of August Earl Granville anPersonnel of the Ar- nounced that the preparation of the British Case had been confided to the Lord Chancellor, who would be assisted by Lord Tenterden and Professor Bernard; that Sir Roundell Palmer had consented to act as counsel, and that Sir Alexander Cockburn had consented to act as British arbitrator. While Sir Roundell Palmer ap peared alone as British counsel, Mr. Mountague Bernard and Mr. Cohen sat by his side at the counsels' table at Geneva, and "the hand of the latter was apparent in the estimates and exhibits presented to the tribunal to guide them in the determination of the damages awarded to the United States."3 Lord Tenterden was appointed as agent for Great Britain.1

The preparation of the American Case was intrusted to Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis, who was selected for the post of agent of the United States. Mr. Charles Francis Adams was ap pointed American arbitrator. Mr. William M. Evarts, Mr. Caleb Cushing, and Mr. Morrison R. Waite, afterward Chief

1 The Times, August 5, 1871. Sir Roundell Palmer, whose opinion on the subject derived a double weight from his great abilities and his connection with the British Government during the civil war in the United States, said that the "substance of the obligation" imposed by the three rules, "as distinct from its foundation and origin," did not materially differ from that imposed by the municipal law of England as it was interpreted and understood by the government, and as the government actually and in good faith at the time undertook to execute it. (Hansard, CCVIII 894.) In the course of his speech Sir Roundell Palmer made some criticisms on the Johnson-Clarendon convention, to which Mr. Johnson published a reply. (A Reply to a Recent Speech of Sir Roundell Palmer on the Washington Treaty and the Alabama Claims: Baltimore, 1871.)

2 The Times, August 12, 1871; For. Rel. 1871, pp. 480, 484, 493, 494.

3 Cushing's Treaty of Washington, 96.

Earl Granville to General Schenck, November 16, 1871, MSS. Dept. of State.

5 For. Rel. 1871, p. 494.

Justice of the United States, acted as American counsel.' Mr. B. R. Curtis was also invited to act as counsel for the United States, but he was unable to accept.2 Counsel were instructed to secure, if possible, the award of a sum in gross.

According to the treaty there were to be, in Neutral Arbitrators. addition to the arbitrators of the United States and Great Britain, three neutral arbitrators,

of whom the King of Italy, the President of the Swiss Confederation, and the Emperor of Brazil were each to be requested to name one. The King of Italy named Count Frederic Sclopis, of Salerano, minister of state, "a member of an eminent Piedmontese family, a senator of Italy, a distinguished judge, a learned lawyer, a man of letters, whose name and reputation were European." Among his numerous writings on jurisprudence is the Storio della Legislazione Italiana, a voluminous work, in which the successive stages of the medieval and modern legislation of the various States of Italy are exhibited. In person Count Sclopis "was tall beyond the ordinary height, noble, and commanding. In character he was firm, independent, upright, truthful. In manners he was a model for all gentlemen."4

The President of the Swiss Confederation named Mr. Jacques Staempfli, a German Swiss of the canton of Berne, an advo cate, journalist, and statesman, a member of the council of state, a representative of Berne in the Diet, and three times President of the Swiss Confederation. "His theory of execu tive action was characteristic of the man, namely, When peril is certain, it is better to advance to meet it rather than timidly to await its approach.' In fine, preparation and decision” were "the distinctive traits of all the official acts of Mr. Staempfli."5

The Emperor of Brazil named Marcos Antonio d'Araujo, Baron d'Itajubá, who was in early life a member of the faculty of law of Olinda. Having been appointed consul-general of Brazil in the Hanse Towns, he successively held the offices of

For instructions to counsel, see Mr. Fish to Mr. Cushing, December 8, 1872, For. Rel. 1872, part 2, II. 414; instructions to agent, id. 414.

2 Cushing's Treaty of Washington, 95.

3 For identic notes requesting the appointment of the neutral arbitrators, see For. Rel. 1871, pp. 450-452.

Mr. Fish and the Alabama Claims, 84; Cushing's Treaty of Washington, 79; Larousse, xiv. 409.

5 Cushing's Treaty of Washington, 80-81.