ready for signature on September 14, 1872. At that meeting for the first time visitors were admitted to a session of the tribunal, and the cantonal government of Geneva was, most appropriately, present in a body. The award had been prepared in both English and French, but was read aloud in English. It was read aloud by the secretary of the tribunal, and was then signed by Adams, Sclopis, Staempfli, and Itajuba, in the order named. Cockburn did not sign it, but filed a dissenting statement. After some further formalities, and amid salvos of artillery fired by the Geneva government, Sclopis declared the work of the tribunal completed and that body dissolved.

It will be observed that the award dealt exclusively with the claims relating to the Confederate cruisers. Its scope was thus much less than was at first intimated. Nevertheless it was sufficient. To take up other matters would have been a mistake, and would have jeopardized the whole procedure. The result was an unequivocal victory for the United States. Equally, as even judicial-minded Britons were impelled to concede, it was a victory for justice and equity, and a vindication of the sanctity of law. Above all, perhaps, it was the first great establishment of the principle and practice of international arbitration. There had been arbitrations before, but none like this. The modern system of international arbitration, or, more properly, adjudication, was suggested by Franklin and Hamilton and was founded in Jay's treaty of 1794, but it had its first important application in the treaty of Washington and the Geneva tribunal.

The result of these epochal proceedings was not received in either country with the grateful appreciation which it deserved. In the United States a Presidential campaign was approaching, in which the spirit of faction rose high, and the administration was largely denied the credit which was its due. Partizan enmity against the President was permitted to obscure the superb achievement which his administration had effected for national rights and honor. In Great Britain, also, partizan feeling was strong enough to overcome judgment. "The London Times" regarded the verdict of the tribunal with "profound satisfaction," while "The Daily Standard" denounced it in terms that

were little short of savage. "The Daily Telegraph" pronounced it a "magnificent victory," and "The Morning Post" described it as "a bungled, unsettling settlement." "The Observer" acclaimed it as a triumph of the cause of peace, and "The Advertiser" characterized all that was said in its favor as "wild, sentimental rubbish." "The Saturday Review" regarded it as "profoundly mortifying to Englishmen," while "The Nonconformist" hailed it as a service to civilization. The later and calmer judgment of both countries has amply confirmed, with substantial unanimity, the most favorable of the estimates which were at first expressed.

There remained to be settled numerous other claims arising out of the Civil War. Many of these were British claims against the United States, for injuries inflicted by the Confederates upon British subjects, for captures and seizures by United States cruisers, and for arbitrary arrests and other alleged violations of the rights of British subjects. Under the terms of the treaty of Washington these were all referred for final settlement to an impartial commission consisting of one representative of each country and one representative of a neutral and friendly power. The members of this commission were James S. Frazer, formerly a justice of the supreme court of Indiana; Russell Gurney, a member of the British Parliament and of the privy council; and Count Louis Corti, the Italian minister at Washington. This commission held its meetings at Washington, beginning on September 26, 1871; Count Corti presiding. There were filed with it in all 478 British claims, amounting, exclusive of interest, to about $60,000,000, and 19 American claims amounting to less than $1,000,000. Of the British claims 259 were for property alleged to have been taken by United States authorities for the uses of the Government; 181 were for property alleged to have been destroyed by the forces of the United States; 7 were for property alleged to have been destroyed by the Confederate forces; 100 were for alleged unlawful arrest or imprisonment of British subjects; 77 were for alleged unlawful capture of British vessels or their cargoes; 3 were for alleged unlawful warning of British vessels away from the American coast; and 34 were of a miscellaneous character. As a result of the commission's labors, 260 British claims were disallowed

on their merits; 181 were allowed, with awards of $1,929,819; and the remainder were withdrawn or dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Of the 19 American claims, all were disallowed and dismissed. In the great majority of cases, the disposition of the claims was agreed to by all three commissioners. Among those unanimously rejected and dismissed was one demanding payment by the United States of some of the Confederate bonds, or "cotton loans." It was properly held by all the commissioners that "the United States is not liable for the payment of debts contracted by the rebel authorities." The final award of the commission was made at Newport, Rhode Island, on September 25, 1873.

The treaty of Washington provided also for the settlement of the old dispute over the San Juan water boundary between the United States and British Columbia, at the northwest, by reference to the German emperor as arbitrator. As related in a former chapter, the award in this case, which was announced two months after the verdict at Geneva, was in favor of the contention of the United States. It was unhesitatingly acquiesced in by both parties.

The question of the extradition of criminals, which had been dealt with in our early relations with Great Britain, was raised afresh in an important way in 1876. A flagrant swindler and forger, one Winslow, had fled from New York to London and was there arrested and his return to this country for trial was demanded. The British government very properly required, before surrendering him, an assurance that he would not be tried for any other offense than that for which he was extradited. The American government declined to give such assurances, on the ground that they were not called for by the treaty. The British demand was based upon the fact that a British law, enacted subsequently to the making of the extradition treaty, contained such a requirement. That was a commendable law, but it was a mistake to base the requirement upon it, for of course the reply was that no domestic law of Great Britain could take from or add to an international treaty. That reply was convincing, yet it was regrettable that the American government felt constrained to make it, since the principle for which the British government was contending was manifestly correct on