The President and the Secretary of State, so it happened, were at Boston, that afternoon, in attendance upon the Peace Jubilee — a great musical demonstration of praise and thanksgiving for the restoration of the Union. It is related that when Mr. Fish had glanced at the telegram, he handed it to General Grant, who for a moment stood silent- the tears moistening his eyes-such was Nature's relief after days of intense anxiety. To Mr. Fish the news came in a shape to make him exceedingly happy. He saw that his prudent and firm statesmanship was to carry through to success a work for his country, and for the peace of the world, that meant the best kind of a personal triumph. The Treaty of Washington had been preserved intact and the principle of Arbitration between nations now seemed destined to bring to mankind its blessings for the years to come,

"I doubt whether Americans, except in Government circles, know how near we were to a tremendous conflict. [The writer (General Badeau, Consul-General of the United States in England), a close observer, lived in London during the period of the clamor and excitement of which we have been taking note.] The feeling in England was very high. At times it was positively offensive to Americans, especially official ones. More than once at clubs and dinners I had to resent remarks that no good 'American could listen to in silence, and yet, I, too, in my sphere was bound to be courteous and reserved." 1

Putnam's 'P. S. He is hanged.'" MS. Letter to Davis, 28 June, 1872.

1 Grant in Peace: A Personal Memoir (1887), p. 228.

In the United States, the news that the "indirect claims" trouble had been got over was received and commented upon quite as a matter of course. Not so in England. As we have seen, the entire population had been stirred up. National prejudice had been at work in full force; and the news from Geneva excited a profound attention, hardly less so than if it had been bulletins posted up from a field of battle where their country's troops were engaged. The assurance that a settlement of the dispute had been effected, and that danger no longer threatened, brought a sense of grateful relief to all parts of the kingdom.

"It was one of the great moments of history. The Cabinet were sitting in London in something like permanent session on that fateful day" (15th), says Granville's biographer.1 Forster in his diary tells the story of how anxious hours were passing while news from Geneva was awaited. When a telegram came on Sunday that Mr. Adams was moving, "we sent a short helpful telegram. Granville drove me off in high glee, calling at the Foreign Office to see Harcourt. After all, this Treaty, which has as many lives as a cat, will live." 2 "You appear to have saved the coach in the act of upsetting." Gladstone was with Granville on the anxious 15th, at the

1 Life of Earl Granville, vol. ii, p. 99.

Reid: Life of Forster, vol. ii, p. 31.

Granville to Tenterden, 30 July, 1872, Life of Earl Granville, vol. ii, p. 100.

Foreign Office where before midnight they got that day's Protocol from Geneva. "Thank God," exclaims the Premier, "that up to a certain point the indications on this great controversy are decidedly favourable." Granville writes a handsome letter, cordially thanking Selborne for the part taken by him in the settlement "of this vexed question in a manner which is so satisfactory in every respect." "

Lord John Russell, who had seen nothing whatever good in the Treaty, was not pleased. His biographer, writing twelve years later, says of the Arbitrators, that they "actually. . . decided the very point which Queen, Cabinet, Foreign Office, and the great majority of the whole nation had decided should not come before them for decision." 1 Morley: Life of Gladstone, vol. ii, p. 411.

• Memorials, vol. i, p. 239.

• Walpole: Life of Lord John Russell, vol. ii, p. 366.

CHAPTER VIII

THE TRIAL

THE "Argument," which the British Agent had been holding in reserve until the indirect claims should be got out of the way, turned out to be, when filed on 27th June, a document not very formidable as to length.

It assumed to be little more than a summary of the points previously advanced in the British Case and Counter-Case. It presented no new line of reasoning. A report annexed from the Board of Trade criticised the figures of the amount of losses offered by the United States. There was a map of the coast off Liverpool; and sundry statements of the CounterCase of the United States were briefly controverted.

It looked suspiciously as if the Counsel for Great Britain had been taken by surprise. For months the opinion had prevailed throughout England that Arbitration would never take place. The Chief Justice had made up his mind that the Treaty was dead,

as he for many months had been loudly telling all London that it ought to be." As early as the 18th of January a rumor, to be treated as gossip, had reached the ears of the Agent of the United States, to the effect that Chief Justice Cockburn had recom

1 Morley's Life of Gladstone, vol. ii, p. 412.

mended Mr. Gladstone to withdraw from the Arbitration if any claim for indirect damages should be insisted upon.1 Sir Roundell Palmer, as we have seen, was disappointed that his duties at Geneva had not been abruptly ended. The "Argument bore marks of having been hastily prepared. At all events, it lacked the tone of a final and concluding answer. It apparently took it for granted that the Tribunal would call for another argument to be of a character more exhaustive. The document termed itself a "Summary." It certainly fell far short of that logically reasoned] reply which the Counsel for the United States had reason to expect.

Nor did this circumstance excite surprise. When it became evident that the proceedings would go forward, the British Government saw itself confronted with the necessity of seeking an opportunity to prepare and submit further argument of a more elaborate character, than that which they were just offering. Sir Roundell Palmer, confident that the step would amount to nothing more than a mere matter between Counsel, addressed a letter (19 June, 1872) to Mr. Evarts suggesting how it would be well to proceed.

... As your Counter-Case was little more than formal, our 'Argument' is necessarily little more than a summary of our previous Case and Counter-Case; while yours is (as it naturally would be) an elaborate Argu

1 MS. Letter of John Jay (Minister to Austria) to Davis, Archives, Department of State.