a great cost to the country the control of the Anglo-Chinese Flotilla, which, it was apprehended, might be used against the United States.

They added that although Great Britain had, from the beginning, disavowed any responsibility for the acts of the Alabama and the other vessels, she had already shown her willingness, for the sake of the maintenance of friendly relations with the United States, to adopt the principle of arbitration, provided that a fitting Arbitrator could be found, and that an agreement could be come to as to the points to which arbitration should apply. They would, therefore, abstain from replying in detail to the statement of the American Commissioners, in the hope that the necessity for entering upon a lengthened controversy might be ob viated by the adoption of so fair a mode of settlement as that which they were instructed to propose; and they had now to repeat, on behalf of their Government, the offer of arbitration.

The American Commissioners expressed their regret at this decision of the British Commissioners, and said further that they could not consent to submit the question of the liability of Her Majesty's Government to arbitration unless the principles which should govern the Arbitrator in the consideration of the facts could be first agreed upon.

The British Commissioners replied that they had no authority to agree to a submission of these claims to an Arbitrator with instructions as to the principles which should govern him in the consideration of them. They said that they should be willing to consider what princi ples should be adopted for observance in future; but that they were of opinion that the best mode of conducting an arbitration was to submit the facts to the Arbitrator, and leave him free to decide upon them after hearing such arguments as might be necessary.

The American Commissioners replied that they were willing to consider what principles should be laid down for observance in similar cases in future, with the understanding that any principles that should be agreed upon should be held to be applicable to the facts in respect to the Alabama Claims.

The British Commissioners replied that they could not admit that there had been any violation of existing principles of International Law, and that their instructions did not authorize them to accede to a proposal for laying down rules for the guidance of the Arbitrator, but that they would make known to their Government the views of the Americau Commissioners on the subject.

At the respective conferences on March 9, March 10, March 13, and March 14, the Joint High Commission considered the form of the declaration of principles or rules which the American Commissioners desired to see adopted for the instruction of the Arbitrator and laid down for observance by the two Governments in future.

At the close of the conference of the 14th of March the British Commissioners reserved several questions for the consideration of their Government.

At the conference on the 5th of April the British Commissioners stated that they were instructed by Her Majesty's Government to declare that Her Majesty's Government could not assent to the proposed rules as a statement of principles of International Law which were in force at the time when the Alabama Claims arose, but that Her Majesty's Government, in order to evince its desire of strengthening the friendly relations between the two countries and of making satisfactory provision for the future, agreed that in deciding the questions between the two countries arising out of those claims, the Arbitrator should assume that Her Majesty's Government had undertaken to act upon the

principles set forth in the rules which the American Commissioners had proposed, viz:

That a neutral Government is bound, first, to use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming, or equipping, within its jurisdiction, of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or carry on war against a power with which it is at peace; and also to use like diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or in part, within such jurisdiction, to warlike

use.

Secondly. Not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations against the other, or for the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms, or the recruitment of men.

Thirdly. To exercise due diligence in its own ports or waters, and as to all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation of the foregoing obligations and duties.

It being a condition of this undertaking, that these obligations should in future be held to be binding internationally between the two countries.

It was also settled that in deciding the matters submitted to him the Arbitrator should be governed by the foregoing rules, which had been agreed upon as rules to be taken as applicable to the case, and by such principles of International Law, not inconsistent therewith, as the Arbitrator should determine to have been applicable to the case.

The Joint High Commission then proceeded to consider the form of submission and the manner of constituting a tribunal of arbitration.

At the conferences on the 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 12th of April the Joint High Commission considered and discussed the form of submission, the manner of the award, and the mode of selecting the Arbitrators.

The American Commissioners, referring to the hope which they had expressed on the 8th of March, inquired whether the British Commissioners were prepared to place upou record an expression of regret by Her Majesty's Government for the depredations committed by the ves sels whose acts were now under discussion; and the British Commissioners replied that they were authorized to express, in a friendly spirit, the regret felt by Her Majesty's Government for the escape, under whatever circumstances, of the Alabama and other vessels from British ports, and for the depredations committed by those vessels.

The American Commissioners accepted this expression of regret as very satisfactory to them and as a token of kindness, and said that they felt sure it would be so received by the Government and people of the United States.

In the conference on the 13th of April the Treaty Articles I to XI were agreed to.

ARTICLES XII To XVII.

At the conference on the 4th of March it was agreed to consider the subjects referred to the Joint High Commission by the respective Governments in the order in which they appeared in the correspondence between Sir Edward Thornton and Mr. Fish, and to defer the consideration of the adjustment of "all other claims, both of British subjects and citizens of the United States, arising out of acts committed during the recent civil war in this country," as described by Sir Edward Thornton

in his letter of February 1, until the subjects referred to in the previous letters should have been disposed of.

The American Commissioners said that they supposed that they were right in their opinion that British laws prohibit British subjects from owning slaves; they therefore inquired whether any claims for slaves, or for alleged property or interest in slaves, can or will be presented by the British Government, or in behalf of any British subject, under the Treaty now being negotiated, if there be in the Treaty no express words excluding such claims.

The British Commissioners replied that by the law of England British subjects had long been prohibited from purchasing or dealing in slaves, not only within the dominions of the British Crown but in any foreign country; and that they had no hesitation in saying that no claim on behalf of any British subject, for slaves or for any property or interest in slaves, would be presented by the British Government.

Referring to the paragraph in Sir Edward Thornton's letter of January 26, relating to "the mode of settling the different questions which have arisen out of the Fisheries, as well as all those which affect the relations of the United States towards Her Majesty's Possessions in North America," the British Commissioners proposed that the Joint High Commission should consider the claims for injuries which the people of Canada had suffered from what were known as the Fenian raids.

The American Commissioners objected to this, and it was agreed that the subject might be brought up again by the British Commissioners in connection with the subject referred to by Sir Edward Thornton in his letter of February 1.

At the conference on the 14th of April the Joint High Commission took into consideration the subjects mentioned by Sir Edward Thornton in that letter.

The British Commissioners proposed that a Commission for the consideration of these claims should be appointed, and that the Convention of 1853 should be followed as a precedent. This was agreed to, except that it was settled that there should be a third Commissioner instead of an Umpire.

At the conference on the 15th of April the Treaty Articles XII to XVII were agreed to.

At the conference on the 26th of April the British Commissioners again brought before the Joint High Commission the claims of the people of Canada for injuries suffered from the Fenian raids. They said that they were instructed to present these claims and to state that they were regarded by Her Majesty's Government as coming within the class of subjects indicated by Sir Edward Thornton in his letter of January 26, as subjects for the consideration of the Joint High Commission.

The American Commissioners replied that they were instructed to say that the Government of the United States did not regard these claims as coming within the class of subjects indicated in that letter as subjects for the consideration of the Joint High Commission, and that they were without any authority from their Government to consider them. They therefore declined to do so.

The British Commissioners stated that, as the subject was understood not to be within the scope of the instructions of the American Commissioners, they must refer to their Government for further instructions upon it.

At the conference on the 3d of May the British Commissioners stated that they were instructed by their Government to express their regret that the American Commissioners were without authority to deal with

the question of the Fenian raids, and they inquired whether that was still the case.

The American Commissioners replied that they could see no reason to vary the reply formerly given to this proposal; that in their view the subject was not embraced in the scope of the correspondence between Sir Edward Thornton and Mr. Fish under either of the letters of the former; and that they did not feel justified in entering upon the consideration of any class of claims not contemplated at the time of the creation of the present Commission, and that the claims now referred to did not commend themselves to their favor.

The British High Commissioners said that under these circumstances they would not urge further that the settlement of these claims should be included in the present treaty, and that they had the less difficulty in doing so, as a portion of the claims were of a constructive and inferential character.

ARTICLES XVIII TO XXV.

At the conference on the 6th of March the British Commissioners stated that they were prepared to discuss the question of the Fisheries, either in detail or generally, so as either to enter into an examination of the respective rights of the two countries under the Treaty of 1818 and the general law of nations, or to approach at once the settlement of the question on a comprehensive basis.

The American Commissioners said that with the view of avoiding the discussion of matters which subsequent negotiation might render it unnecessary to enter into, they thought it would be preferable to adopt the latter course, and inquired what, in that case, would be the basis which the British Commissioners desired to propose.

The British Commissioners replied that they considered that the Reciprocity Treaty of June 5, 1854, should be restored in principle.

The American Commissioners declined to assent to a renewal of the former reciprocity treaty.

The British Commissioners then suggested that, if any considerable modification were made in the tariff arrangements of that Treaty, the coasting trade of the United States and of Her Britannic Majesty's Possessions in North America should be reciprocally thrown open, and that the navigation of the River Saint Lawrence and of the Canadian Canals should be also thrown open to the citizens of the United States on terms of equality with British subjects.

The American Commissioners declined this proposal, and objected to a negotiation on the basis of the Reciprocity Treaty. They said that that Treaty had proved unsatisfactory to the people of the United States, and consequently had been terminated by notice from the Government of the United States, in pursuance of its provisions. Its renewal was not in their interest, and would not be in accordance with the senti ments of their people. They further said that they were not at liberty to treat of the opening of the coasting trade of the United States to the subjects of Her Majesty residing in her Possessions in North America. It was agreed that the questions relating to the navigation of the River Saint Lawrence, and of the Canadian Canals, and to other commercial questions affecting Canada, should be treated by themselves.

The subject of the Fisheries was further discussed at the conferences on the 7th, 20th, 22d, and 25th of March. The American Commissioners stated that if the value of the inshore fisheries could be ascertained, the United States might prefer to purchase, for a sum of money, the right

to enjoy, in perpetuity, the use of these inshore fisheries in common with British fishermen, and mentioned one million dollars as the sum they were prepared to offer. The British Commissioners replied that this offer was, they thought, wholly inadequate, and that no arrangement would be acceptable of which the admission into the United States free of duty of fish, the produce of the British fisheries, did not form a part, adding that any arrangement for the acquisition by purchase of the inshore fisheries in perpetuity was open to grave objection.

The American Commissioners inquired whether it would be necessary to refer any arrangement for purchase to the Colonial or Provincial Parliament.

The British Commissioners explained that the Fisheries within the limits of maritime jurisdiction were the property of the several British Colonies, and that it would be necessary to refer any arrangement which might affect Colonial property or rights to the Colonial or Provincial Parliament; and that legislation would also be required on the part of the Imperial Parliament.

During these discussions the British Commissioners contended that these inshore fisheries were of great value, and that the most satisfactory arrangement for their use would be a reciprocal tariff arrangement, and reciprocity in the coasting trade; aud the American Commissioners replied that their value was overestimated; that the United States desired to secure their enjoyment, not for their commercial or intrinsic value, but for the purpose of removing a source of irritation; and that they could hold out no hope that the Congress of the United States would give its assent to such a tariff arrangement as was proposed, or to any extended plan of reciprocal free admission of the products of the two countries; but that, inasmuch as one branch of Congress had recently, more than once, expressed itself in favor of the abolition of duties on coal and salt, they would propose that coal, salt, and fish be reciprocally admitted free; and, that, inasmuch as Congress had removed the duty from a portion of the lumber heretofore subject to duty, and as the tendency of legislation in the United States was toward the reduction of taxation and of duties in proportion to the reduction of the public debt and expenses, they would further propose that lumber be admitted free from duty from and after the first of July, 1874, subject to the approval of Congress, which was necessary on all questions affecting import duties.

The British Commissioners, at the conference on the 17th of April, stated that they had referred this offer to their Government, and were instructed to inform the American Commissioners that it was regarded as inadequate, and that Her Majesty's Government considered that free lumber should be granted at once, and that the proposed tariff concessions should be supplemented by a money payment.

The American Commissioners then stated that they withdrew the proposal which they had previously made of the reciprocal free admission of coal, salt, and fish, and of lumber after July 1, 1874; that that proposal had been made entirely in the interest of a peaceful settlement, and for the purpose of removing a source of irritation and of anxiety; that its value had been beyond the commercial or intrinsic value of the rights to have been acquired in return; and that they could not consent to an arrangement on the basis now proposed by the British Commissioners; and they renewed their proposal to pay a money equivalent for the use of the inshore fisheries. They further proposed that, in case the two Governments should not be able to agree upon the sum to be paid as such an equivalent, the matter should be referred to an impartial Commission for determination.