DEPARTMENT OF STATE. CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING QUESTIONS PENDING BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES. TRANSMITTED TO THE SENATE IN OBEDIENCE TO A RESOLUTION. WASHINGTON. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1870. K I «sa "=■*»*. DEPARTMENT OF STATE CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING QUESTIONS PENDING BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES. TRANSMITTED TO THE SENATE IN OBEDIENCE TO A RESOLUTION. WASHINGTON. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1870. CORRESPONDENCE. Department of State, Washington, July 13,1870. The Secretary of State, to whom was referred the resolution adopted by the Senate on the 8th instant, requesting the President to communicate to that body, if compatible with the public interest, copies of any correspondence between the United States and Great Britain concerning questions pending between the two countries, not heretofore communicated, has the honor to lay before the President the papers mentioned in the annexed descriptive list. Respectfully submitted. Ill HAMILTON FISH. The President. List of papers. No. 1. Mr. Fish to Mr. Motley, No. 119, December 22,1869. The Senate having called for correspondence between the United States and Great Britain, Mr. Fish has sent Lord Clarendon's note of November 6, but has not sent the " Notes," because there was nothing to indicate that they contained the official views of her Majesty's government. No. 2. Mr. Motley to Mr. Fish, No. 21G, January 13, 1870. Acknowledging Mr. Fish's No. 119. Account of an interview with Lord Clarendon, in which the subjects of the naturalization treaty, the San Juan water boundary, and the Alabama claims were discussed. Lord Clarendon regards the course of the United States upon water boundary convention as discourteous, and thinks Mr. Fish should have sent the British "Notes" to the Senate. No. 3. Lord Clarendon to Mr. Thornton, No. 22, January 21, 1870. Expressing surprise that no communication has been made to the British government about the San Juan water boundary convention. No. 4. Mr. Fish to Mr. Motley, No. 149, February 14,1870. Explaining the circumstances under which the "Notes" were received, and the reasons which this government had for regarding them as unofficial; and instructing Mr. Motley to inquire whether they are to be regarded as official. No. 5. Mr. Fish to Mr. Motley, No. 151, February 15, 1870. Lord Clarendon's charge of discourtesy as to the water boundary convention exeites regret. The course of this government has not proceeded from a want of desire to observe strict courtesy toward the government of Great Britain. As to the San Juan water boundary, the British gov- 2. QUESTIONS PENDING BETWEEN THE eminent were informed from the outset by this government that, until the naturalization question was settled, any attempt to settle other questions would be unavailing. The naturalization question was not settled when the time for exchanging ratifications of the water boundary convention expired. No. 6. Mr. Motley to Mr. Fish, No. 274, March 10, 1870. Has read to Lord Clarendon Mr. Fish's No. 151 and left copy. Lord C. expressed satisfaction. No. 7. Mr. Motley to Mr. Fish, No. 278, March 17,1870. Further as to the "Notes," inclosing copy of Mr. Motley's note to Lord Clarendon under the instructions in Mr. Fish's No. 149. No. 8. Mr. Motley to Mr. Fish, No. 282, March 19,1S70. Inclosing a note from Lord Clarendon as to the character to be given to the " Notes." They represent the views of her Majesty's government, and arc in tiie nature of an historical statement. No. 9. Mr. Fish to Mr. Motley, No. 190, April 25,1870. Acknowledging receipt of Mr. Motley's No. 282, commenting upon Lord Clarendon's note in Mr. Motley's No. 282, and concluding that this government will (unless invited by her Majesty's government to a different course) regard the "Notes" as no part of the official correspondence. No. 10. Mr. Fish to Mr. MotleyVNo. 211, June 10,1870. Transmitting copy of a note (dated May 24,1870) from Lord Clarendon to Mr. Thornton about the " Notes." Her Majesty's government agree with Mr. Fish that it is not expedient to prolong the discussion on points on which there is little hope of being able to agree. No. 1. Mr. Fish to Mr. Motley. No. 119.J Department of State, Washington, December 22,1869. Sir : The Senate of the United States on the 20th instant " resolved that the President of the United States be requested to communicate to the Senate, if in his opinion not incompatible with the public interests, copies of any correspondence between the United States and Great Britain concerning questions pending between the two countries, since the rejection of the claims convention by the Senate." In response to this resolution, the President has, this morning, sent to the Senate a message,* of which I inclose a copy, together with a list of the correspondence accompanying it. You will observe that while the note of Lord Clarendon to Mr. Thornton, of the 6th of November last, referred to in your No. 168, is made public, the paper entitled " Notes" on Mr. Fish's dispatch to Mr. Motley, of 25th of September, 1869, respecting the Alabama, &c, claims, also referred to in your No. 168, does not accompany the President's message. It is perhaps proper that an explanation should be made of the reason for this omission. * For message of the President, see Senate Executive Document No. 10, forty-first Congress, second session. n UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN. When Mr. Thornton, in obedience to his instructions, and at my request, handed me a copy of the " Notes " (which you will observe are not dated or signed) he left with me no written paper to indicate that they were to be regarded definitively and officially as the views of her Majesty's government on the matters discussed in them. And since Lord Clarendon, in his note of the 6th of November, had expressly declined to follow me in the discussion of the issues presented by my No. 70, of the 25th September last, I was forced to the conclusion that her Majesty's government do not desire this government to regard the " Notes" as a response to the views which you were instructed to present to Lord Clarendon, and that therefore I should not be justified in giving that character to it by transmitting it to the Senate as a part of the " correspondence." Yon will, when an opportunity offers, make this explanation to Lord Clarendon. I am, sir, your obedient servant, HAMILTON FISH. John Lothrop Motley, Esq., &e. , UNITED 8TATE8 AND GREAT BRITAIN. 1:7 of the 21st of December last. It was then that the Secretary of State saw for the first time that second dispatch, written by your lordship to Mr. Thornton, in which the official character maintained by your lordship in the former note of the same date, which he had read to Mr. Fish, and of which he had furnished a copy, was disclaimed. It was this publication that first gave to these "Notes " an official significance.' Your lordship will now comprehend the doubtfulness of the Secretary of State as to the position in this regard of her Majesty's government at tho moment of the official communication made to him at Washington. This doubtfulness has made it seem more just to adopt the course of comity and of favorable construction, and before coming to a positive conclusion to wait for reflection and for such possible solution of doubt in the process of time as circumstances might afford. There was nothing in the state of the controversy to forbid such a course or to prejudice by it any interest of the United States. But when the published correspondence in the Gazette of the 24th December arrived, the preceding uncertainty was augmented. The second dispatch of your lordship of date of 6th of November, now coming under the observation of the Secretary of State for the first time, as thus published by the'Foreign Office, made him aware, to his surprise, that your lordship professed to look upon his dispatch of the 25th of September as not being of a strictly official character, and as being communicated to your lordship personally rather than as the representative of the Queen's government, and that, therefore, yon did not think it necessary, in your official reply " to the communication made by " myself, to express dissent from the statements in that dispatch. In the formal determination expressed by your lordship in your first dispatch of November the 6th to Mr. Thornton not to pursue the discussion, and in the delivery of the paper entitled " Notes," there seemed to be contradiction between words and acts, but as the " Notes" were without date and unsigned, as they were unofficial in their tenor and form, and as therefore they did not afford the government of the United States opportunity to treat them as an official reply of the Queen's government_ to that of the United States, it was necessary for the Secretary of State to leave them unanswered; for, by answering them, it seemed to him that he would be calling, in .question your lordship's frankness. Thus the tenor of your lordship's second dispatch of the 6th of November, and the appearance of the "Notes" in the " Correspondence" published by the Foreign Office, but when thus made public elevated into the dignity of " Observations," served to enhance the uncertainty of construction in this respect which the delivery of the " Notes " in connection with your lordship's first dispatch of the 6th of November had produced. Having taken into consideration these various incidents, the President is now desirous of ascertaining with precision whether the above-mentioned "Notes" or " Observations " are to be regarded as the official act of the Queen's government in response to the dispatch of the Secretary of State of the 25th of September last. In that dispatch, as I have already had the honor to state, the President's views were officially set forth for the information not of your lordship personally, but of the Queen's government, the President wishing neither to utter nor to reply to any but the most explicit propositions. If the " Notes," or " Observations," are official, he deems it .proper that the government of the United States shall treat them as such; and so, on the other hand, if they are unofficial. I have, therefore, now the honor, in obedience to recent instructions from my government, to request your lordship, most respectfully and courteously, for information whether the " Notes " are or are not to be treated by the President of the United States as an official exposition of the views of her Majesty's government. I pray your lordship to accept the assurance of the highest consideration with which I have the honor to be, my lord, your lordship's most obedient servant, JOHN LOTHROP MOTLEY. The Right Honorable the Eakl of Clarendon, . G. Lord Clarendon to Mr. Motley. Foreign Office, March 18,1870. Sn?: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 12th instant; and I beg to state to yon that a report of the manner in which the paper forwarded in my second dispatch to Mr. Thornton, of the 6th of November, was communicated to Mr. Fish, is given in the dispatch from Mr. Thornton, of the 22d of November, published in the correspondence recently presented to Parliament, of which, for convenience of reference, I inclose a copy. In this dispatch Mr. Thornton states: " In compliance with the instructions contained in your lordship's dispatch of the 6th instant, I went to the State-Department and read that dispatch to the Secretary of State, leaving a copy of it, at his request, in his hands. " I then explained to him the reason, as set forth in yourlordship'sothe1" dispatch of the 6th instant, which had induced you to follow his example as to the form which you had adopted to express your dissent from the statements contained in his dispatch to Mr. Motley of the 25th of September last, after which I proceeded to read to him the paper containing your lordship's observations, and, at his request, gave him a copy of it. I Mr. Fish heard me read both the above-mentioned documents without making any remark whatever, and upon my concluding merely said that they would be taken into consideration by his government, at the same time expressing his hope that some means might be found of coming to an amicable arrangement of all the questions at issue." i It will be seen, therefore, that there is an apparent d'screpancy, which I have no doubt Mr. Thornton will be able to explain to Mr. Fish, between the accounts respectively given of this interview. In reply to the inquiry contained in the concluding portion of your letter, I have the honor to request that you will inform Mr. Fish that the paper containing my observations on his dispatch of the 25th of September was furnished to Mr. Thornton to be read to Mr. Fish, with the same object, of usiug an unreserved frankness in its statements, with which Mr. Fish's dispatch was addressed to you, in order that it might be read to me. For the reasons given in my other dispatch to Mr. Thornton of .the 6th or November, her Majesty's government had determined not to reply categorically to Mr. Fish's dispatch, and the paper thus communicated by my directions to Mr. Fish was accordingly confined to some observations on matters with regard to which it appeared to her Majesty's government from Mr. Fish's dispatch that the government of the United States misapprehended the position in which this country stood. These observations, therefore, correctly represent the views of her Majesty's government. They were in the nature of an historical statement, founded, as is shown on the face of them, on the correspondence which has passed between the two governments, on papers presented to Congress, on the judgments of United States prize courts, and on other public records, and. were intended as a recapitulation of facts and arguments; all, or nearly all, of which have been repeatedly referred to during the previous discussion, while the observations omitted all reference to various topics which might have been introduced into them, had it not been the desire of her Majesty's govern- -* UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN. 19 incntto narrow asonuch as possible what they think the unprofitable field of controversy. Indeed, almost the only opinion adverted to in them is one in which her Majesty's government am glad to recognize that the United States government concur, and which consists in a citation of the proposal made by her Majesty's government in December, 1865, for a revision of the international law of maritime neutrality. I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient, humble servant, CLARENDON. JOHX Loth hop Motley, Esq., i:i>: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your lordship's note of the 18th instant in answer to mine of the 12th, conveying the request of my government for information in reference to the precise character to be assigned to the "Notes (or Observations) on Mr. Fish's dispatch of the 25th of September, 1869," and to state that a copy of your above-mentioned note of the 18th instant has been forwarded to the Secretary of State by this.day's steamer. Renewing. Ac. JOHN LOTHROP MOTLEY. The Right Honorable the Earl of Clarendon, fc, 4-e., Jh. No. 9. ■ Mr. Fish to Mr. Motley. Ho. 190.] Department of State, Washington, April 25,1870. Sir : I have to acknowledge yonr dispatch, No. 278, of 17th March, in which yon transmit a copy of yonr note of 12th March to the Earl of Clarendon, which presents to his lordship, with great accuracy, the circumstances under which one of his lordship's dispatches to Mr. Thornton of 6th November last, and a paper at that time entitled "Notes," and subsequently called u Observations," were presented to me and came to the knowledge of this government. It also presents, correctly, the surprise with which I first saw, in'the London Gazette of 24th December, the second dispatch of the Earl of Clarendon to Mr. Thornton, also dated 6th November. You had been advised by me, in a dispatch of 14th of February, of the particulars of an interview between Mr. Thornton and myself on 19th of November, when he read to me the former of these two dispatches of the same date, (6th November,) and left me, without its being read, but with an understanding to consider it read, under a -contingent reservation, the paper then entitled " Notes." Your note to his lordship of 12th March embodies, accurately, my statement to you. 1 have also to acknowledge your No. 282, of 19th March, communicating a copy of Lord Clarendon's reply, dated March 18, to your note of 12th March. In this reply, Lord Clarendon quotes Mr. Thornton's dispatch to him of 22d November last, and adds: •• It will be seen, therefore, that there is an apparent discrepancy, which I have (he had) no doubt '* I— 20 QUESTIONS PENDING BETWEEN THE Mr. Thornton will be able to explain to Mr. Fish, between the accounts respectively given of this interview." I sincerely regret this reference of his lordship, after a careful review of the statement in my dispatch, No. 149, of 14th February, of what occurred at the interview .between Mr. Thornton and myself of 19th November last. I am unable to find any alteration which either my own memory or the private note of the interview made on the day of its occurrence will allow to be made; neither do I find anything therein stated which a very friendly interchange of views at a recent conference with the accomplished and estimable representative of her Majesty to this government suggests as at variance with the actual occurrence at that interview. It is true that I have from Mr. Thornton that he quite confidently thinks that he not only read to me Lord Clarendon's dispatch, published as No. 6, in the supplement to the London Gazette of 24th December, 1869, but that he also read to me his lordship's other dispatch of the same date, (November 6,) published as No. 7 in the Gazette. Herein our memories are at variance; my recollection suggests very confidently that only one note was read. In this recollection I am sustain^ by a memorandum which I made on the day of the interview, by the fact that 1 could not have heard that second dispatch read, and have failed to be impressed by and to have noticed the declaration therein that Lord Clarendon regards mine of 25th September as not being of a strictly official character, and as being communicated to him personally, rather than as the representative of the Queen's government; by the further fact that this second dispatch did not authorize its being read; and, again, by the fact that on the 22d of November, only three days after the interview, when Mr. Thornton officially communicated its result to his government,-he did not allude to his having read the second dispatch. With the exception of this one point, I am not aware o ence with regard to the interview of 19th November, which suggestec 1: I any difter- a very free fail to see en in mine and frank conference with Mr. Thornton ha anything which will justify an alteration of tne account giv of 14th February, and repeated by you in your note of 12th March. I might, however, have added to that statement what I now state,. viz: that on the next occasion, after the interview of 19th November, when again I met Mr. Thornton, and in pursuance of the understanding with which the "Notes" had been left with me, without being then read, I told him that I had read them and determined to retain the copy, which he was thereby authorized to consider me as having requested at the close of its (constructively) being read to me; that I did not accept many of the views presented, and thought them open to reply ; but that, as Lord Clarendon in his dispatch had expressed the determination of her Majesty's government not to follow me in the points discussed in mine of 25th September, I should not pursue the discussion which might be suggested by this paper. Nothing could be more explicit than the words used by his lordship in the dispatch No. 6, of 6th November, which Mr. Thornton was directed to read to me, that " her Majesty's government have determined not to follow Mr. Fish through the long recapitulation of the various points that have been discussed in the voluminous correspondence that has taken place between the governments for several years." The Earl of Clarendon, in his second dispatch to Mr. Thornton, November 6,1869, (No. 7, in the Gazette,) draws a distinction between the " Observations" ("Notes") which it incloses and the views set forth 1 UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN. 21 in his No. 6, of the same date, to the same gentleman, which was officially communicated to me. His No. 6 assumes to express the official views of her Majesty's government. Three paragraphs are devoted to describing his interview with yourself and his reception of a copy of my dispatch of 25th September. Four paragraphs follow, reciting the substance of that dispatch. Seven successive paragraphs then state the views of her Majesty's government on different points, (including the determination, above cited, not to follow me in the discussion,) and the last paragraph instructs Mr. Thornton to read the dispatch to me. His No. 7 incloses the "Notes" or "Observations." The first paragraph refers to the No. 6 as' containing the " official reply to the communication made by Mr. Motley," (*. e., to my dispatch of 25th September.) In the second paragraph Lord Clarendon says: "I desire, however, to place before Mr. Fish, in the same manner as Mr. Motley was instructed to place.before me, some observations that have occurred to me," and he accordingly transmits a paper to that effect. The obvious conclusion from this language would be that a clear distinction is drawn between the "official reply to the communication made to Mr. Motley" and some observations that had occurred to Lord Clarendon; that the reply (viz: the dispatch No. 6 to Mr. Thornton) was the expression of her Majesty's government—official correspondence between that government and this; that the " Observations" (inclosed in No. 7) were individual observations of Lord Clarendon. The publication of this dispatch, No. 7, in the London Gazette of 24th December led to my instructions to you, which were embodied in your note of 12th of March, to inquire whether the "Notes" are or are not to be treated by the President as an official exposition of the views of her Majesty's government. Lord Clarendon's reply to this question is not as explicit as might have been desired. His lordship still draws the distinction between the views contained in No. 6 and those contained in No. 7. He says that " her Majesty's government had determined not to reply categorically to Mr. Fish's dispatch," and that the paper communicated to me by his direction was accordingly confined to some observations on matters with regard to which it appeared to her Majesty's government from Mr. Fish's dispatch that the government of the United States misapprehended the position in which this country (Great Britain) stood," thus maintaining the distinction previously observed between the official character of dispatch No. 6 and that of the inclosure in No. 7. From this it would appear that the government of the United States is warranted in drawing the conclusion that, although Lord Clarendon's colleagues may individually or collectively concur with him in the views expressed in the "Notes" or " Observations," that paper is nevertheless not to be regarded as an " official expression" on the part of her Majesty's government. To treat them as part of the correspondence, and to answer them officially would not only open again what the Earl of Clarendon calls "the unprofitable field of controversy," but might possibly widen that field by drawing into discussion still other points, and make it even more unprofitable, and less promising of hope for the disposition of the existing question. We do not believe it the intent of either government, and it is certainly no part of the wish of this government, to extend the discussion. ' Acting therefore in the sense expressed, this government will, unless a different course be invited by her Majesty's government, continue to i 22 QUESTIONS PENDING BETWEEN THE regard the " Notes" as no part of the correspondence, but a paper containing, iu the language of Lord Clarendon in his No. 7 to Mr. Thornton, of November 6, some observations that had occurred to him, which he desired to place before me personally rather than as the representative of this government, which were received by me as not an official communication from her Majesty's government to this government, and to which, when they had been read, I orally replied that I dissented from many of the views and statements presented, but, influenced by Lord Clarendon's expressed determination not to pursue the discussion, I rested upon the verbal expression of dissent. You will be pleased to read this dispatch to her Majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, and will leave a copy thereof with him. I am, sir, your obedient servant, HAMILTON FISH. J. Lothrop Motley,' Esq. No.IO. Mr. Fish to Mr. Motley. No. "211.] Department op State, Washin UNITED STATES AND GEEAT BRITAIN. 23 The memorandum therefore was confined, as I have already stated to Mr. Motley, to * recapitulation 01 facts and arguments, all or nearly all of which have been repeatedly referred to during the previous discussion. Her Majesty's government, though prepared, if called upon, to maintain their views as set forth in the memorandum and in the preceding communications which have passed between the two governments, entirely agree with Mr. Fish that, for the settlement and disposition of the questions at issue, it.is neither useful nor expedient to continue a controversial correspondence in which there is so little hope of either government being able to convince the other, aud in which their respective position and opinions have been so amply recorded and sustained. Tou will read this dispatch to Mr. Fish, and give him a copy of it should he require one. I am, &c, CLARENDON. Edward Thornton, Esq., C. B., $c, $c, §c. '