Procedure of the 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. XV.-PROTOCOL OF CONFERENCE BETWEEN J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS. 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 partic ular, 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; London Times, June 13, 1871. Life, Letters, and Diaries of Sir Stafford Northcote, II. 15. 3 Mr. Fish and the Alabama Claims, 73. Life, 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 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."1 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 sioners. The instructions of the American commisInstructions of the sioners, which were signed by Mr. Fish and American Commis- 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. 1 Blue Book, North America, No. 3 (1871); For. Rel. 1873, part 3, pp. 373–377. * Blue Book, North America, No. 3 (1871); For. Rel. 1873, part 3, p. 377. "3. Reciprocal trade between the United States and the Dominion of Canada. "4. Northwest water boundary and the island of San Juan. "5. The claims of the United States against Great Britain on account of acts committed by rebel cruisers. "Claims of British subjects against the United States for losses and injuries arising out of acts committed during the civil war in the United States." The discussion and treatment of these questions the President committed to the joint discretion of the American commissioners.1 Mr. Fish's Statement of March 8. The original statement in the joint high commission of the complaint of the United States on the subject of the Alabama claims was drawn up by Mr. Fish and was read by him on the 8th of March. The text of it will be given hereafter, when we come to the controversy that arose in regard to the "indirect claims," the term by which the claims discussed by Mr. Sumner as "national claims" came to be known. Duty. At the conferences on the 9th, 10th, 13th, Definition of Neutral and 14th of March the joint high commission was occupied with the consideration of a form of rules for the definition of neutral duty, as desired by the American commissioners. In the statement of principles read by Mr. Fish on the 8th of March it was declared to be the duty of a neutral (1) to use "active diligence" to prevent the "construction, fitting out, arming, equipping, or augmenting the force," within its jurisdiction, of a vessel whereby war was intended to be carried on against a power with which it was at peace; (2) to use like diligence, if such vessel should escape, to arrest and detain her when she again came within its jurisdiction; (3) to instruct its naval forces, in all parts of the globe, to arrest and detain a vessel so escaping, wherever found upon the high seas. It was also declared that a power failing to observe either of these rules was justly liable for injuries and 1 For. Rel. 1873, part 3, pp. 275–370. 2 Mr. Davis' MS. Journal. At the conference on the 10th of March Mr. Fish suggested, among other topics for consideration, privateering, the exemption of private property at sea, and the prohibition of the destruction of property captured on the high seas without adjudication by a competent court. The British commissioners did not think that their powers would justify their considering these points, and doubted the wisdom of entering upon them while the principal questions before the commission remained unsettled. (Ibid.) |