Page. Case of the United States vs. DeQuincy- Question whether the Florida should have been seized on again coming V. Reply of the Secretary of State, acknowledging the receipt of the report of the agent of the United States, and commenting upon the opinion of the Sir A. Cockburn professes to speak as the representative of Great Britain.. Résumé of the positions he maintains as the representative of Great Britain. Effect of the controversy in defining neutral rights and obligations. The importance of noting the views of the representative of the British I.-REPORT OF J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS, AGENT OF THE UNITED STATES. REPORT. Mr. Davis to Mr. Fish. PARIS, September 21, 1872. (Received October 10, 1872.) SIR: I transmit herewith, in a separate inclosure, the original award of the tribunal of arbitration, and, in another separate in- Award and protoclosure, the original protocols of the conferences. cols transmitted. Having now conducted to a successful termination the interests intrusted to me by the President, I respectfully ask permission to make a statement respecting them. the indirect claims. At the conference of the joint high commissioners at Washington, in which the subject of the Alabama claims was first consid- Action of joint ered, the American commissioners, in their opening state high commission ou ment, defined the demands of the United States against Great Britain, growing out of the acts of the Alabama, and the other cruisers, which were to be the subject of the negotiations, in the following language, viz: Extensive direct losses in the capture and destruction of a large number of vessels, with their cargoes, and in the heavy national expenditure in the pursuit Protocol of May 4, of the cruisers; and indirect injury in the transfer of a large part of the 1871, and statement. American commercial marine to the British flag, in the enhanced payment of insurance, in the prolongation of the war, and in the addition of a large sum to the cost of the war and the suppression of the rebellion. of claims. At the same time they indicated the manner in which some of these claims could be substantiated, viz: the claims for the loss and destruction of private property in the ordinary manner; the cost of the pursuit of the cruisers "by certificates of Government accounting officers," and what they styled "indirect losses" by estimates. All the subsequent negotiations proceeded from this starting point. It has been shown, beyond possible question, in the argument of General Cushing, Mr. Evarts, and Mr. Waite, presented to the In harmony with tribunal on the 15th of June last, that this definition of our all previous action. claims was in strict accordance with all previous negotiations between the two governments, with the action of the Senate of the United States, and with the official expressions of the President to Congress. The British members of the joint high commission took no exception to the definition when it was made by their American colleagues. They acquiesced in it. No exception taken by British commissioners. Definition of “Alaprotocol, binding ou bama Claims," in the the agent. When I had the honor to receive the directions of the President to prepare the Case of the United States for submission to the tribunal, I regarded myself as bound by the definition of the words "Alabama Claims" which the American commissioners had given in the opening conference, which they had adhered to throughout the negotiations, and which had been placed in the protocol by the joint act of all the commissioners. I looked in vain in the treaty for any waiver or remission of those claims. On the contrary, I found an express provision that the United States were to have the judgment of the tribunal on all their claims growing out of the acts of the cruisers. Preparation of case. The question was a practical one: for the claims for "enhanced rates of insurance" were among those which had been classified Private claims clas. as "indirect" in the statement, which had received the apsified as indirect. proval of all the members of the joint high commission.. Many claims of this character were presented at the Department of State, and a circular was issued, under the immediate direction of the Secretary of State, informing claimants that all claims growing out of the acts of the cruisers would be presented to the tribunal, leaving that body to determine on their merits. Employment of Mr. Beaman. It was impossible for me to prepare the Case and, at the same time, to direct in person the details of the arrangement of the evidence respecting the national and individual claims. Mr. Charles C. Beaman, jr., of New York, was employed to do the latter, under general directions from me, and did his work with admirable fidelity. Thus the evidence already collected, together with important new materials from the archives of the several Departments, and the proof of the losses suffered by individual claimants, were arranged and stated in the manner marked out by the American members of the joint high commission, viz: His fidelity. 1. The evidence offered by individual claimants for the loss and destruction of property and for enhanced rates of insurance was analyzed and tabulated, and a full abstract of each case was prepared by the clerks. Arrangement of the evidence. 2. The national claims for the pursuit of the cruisers were stated and tabulated at the Navy Department, and were inserted by us exactly as received from that Department. 3. No proof was offered of the national losses by the transfer of the commercial marine, or by the prolongation of the war, but they were left to be estimated by the tribunal of arbitration, should Great Britain be found responsible for them. Preparation of The Case, which was reserved for my own work, was constructed onthe following theories of fact and of law-theories which case-principles have received the sanction of the eminent counsel of the United States; which have been adhered to in all the arguments, and which have, to no small extent, been adopted by the arbitrators: adopted. (a) That the tribunal of arbitration was a judicial body, substituted The tribunal a ju- by the parties to take the place of force, and empowered to try and determine issues which otherwise could be settled dicial body. (if at all) only by war. Case to be stated frankly. (b.) That the injuries of the United States should be stated, therefore, with the fullness necessary to a determination in a court of law, and with the same frankness with which they would be stated in case of an appeal to force. I did not think that the United States could obtain full justice at the hands of the arbitrators if any appreciable part of their wrongs were left untold. Unfriendly course (c.) That the government of Great Britain, by its indiscreet haste in counselling the Queen's proclamation recognizing the inof Great Britain and surgents as belligerents, by its preconcerted joint action due dili with France respecting the declarations of the congress of Paris, by its refusal to take steps for the amendment of its British ministers. gence |