The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-07-28
INDIRECT DAMAGES VS.. FENIAN CLAIMS.
Secretary Fish's Dignity Aroused
and Plain Talk ResOrted To.
THE DELICATE POINTS,
Granville Denying What Was Not Asserted
and Sir Stafford Northcote "Promis-
ing" Without Authority.
WASHINGTON. July 81. Is

The following are unpublished dispatches which
passed previous to the meeting of the Geneva ar
bitration, regarding the question OF indirect
damages
No. 90.
The following despatch was published in the
supplement to the London Gazette May II, and
communicated In accordance with instructions
from this BY Sir Edward Thornton
EARL GRANVILLE TO SIR E. THORNTON.
FOREIGN OFFICE May 10, 1872
SIR-Her Majestys government have refrained
from continuing an argumentative discussion with
the government of the United States upon the
scope and the intention OF the articles in the Treaty
OF Washington, relating to the arbitration on the
Alabama claims. There are, however, some pas
sages in Mr. Fsh's dispatch on this subject OF the
10th ultimO upon which 1t seems desirable that for
your own information and for use in any future
communications with the government OF the United
States you should be put In possession OF the views
OF Her Majestys government. In the first place
Mr.. Fish takes exception TO the assertion in my
letter Of the Goth of March that although II is true
that in some of the earlier letters of Mr.. Adams
vague suggestions were made IA TO possible liabii-
ties OF this country extending beyond the direct
claims OF American citizens for specific losses aris-
ing from the capture Of their vessels by the
ALABAMA, FLORIDA, SHENANDOAH AID GEORGIA,
no claims were ever defined or formulated and
certainly none were ever described by the phrase
ALABAMA CLAIMS"
except these direct claims OF American citizens.
Mr. Fisk states that cannot be supposed to intend
more than to say that the claims Tor indirect or
national losses and injuries not formulated by
the United States government and the amount there
not, however, contne myself to saying that no
claims OF this nature were ever defined or formu
lated, but added that no such claims had ever
been described as alabama claims" Mr.. Fish
admits that the claims for indirect or national
losses were not formulated or defined, but pro-
ceeds TO cite various passages IN the correspond
cnce In which he considers that they were brought
forward. He does not mention one instance
In which they described as alabama
claims" The fact is that throughout the CORE
ep0ndence the representations made by the United
States government respecting the actual claims for
~ thn Hpn
relations of the ''Alabaman and other cruisers were
interspersed with complaints of the supposed
the Confederate States by the issue OF Her Males
tvs proclamation of neutrality and OF the proceed
cited by Mr.. Fish will be found, when read with
their context to have reference to these complaints
and to the indefinite suggestions Of liability
founded on them. on the other hand on turn
ing TO the memorandum enclosed in my
letter OF the Goth OF March, it is apparent
that the phrase alabama Claims'' has uniformly
been used TO distinguish the actual claims on ac-
count of the acts committed by the Alabama and
the other cruisers from these complaints OF the
latitude" assumed by Great Britain. Mr. Fish
lays great stress on the statement in Mr.. Adams
letter of the Goth OF November 1862. He was in
private injuries already thus sustained" The
injuries thus sustained were, as appears
iTe Of the cmuaae an g''r o aer
vessels by the Alabama. As already pointed ont in
the memorandum, Mr.. Adams spoke merely OF the
depredations committed on the high seas upon
merchant vessels by the Alabama, and OF the right
OF reclamation OF the government OF the United
States for the grevous damage done IL 20 the prop
erty of their citizens aud referred TO the Claims
Commission under the treaty OF 1891 as q prcce
dent for awarding compensation. There Is not Il
word in the letter to suggest any
INDIRECT OR CONSTRUCTIVE cLAIas.
In the despatch OF the 10th OF February. 1862 Mr.
Seward, In a similar manner, uses the term Z" its
claims" with obvious reference to the claims put
forward by the United States on behalf OF American
citizens, those indeed being the only claims that
had been indicated in the correspondence between
Mr.. Adams and Lord Russell to which he was
alIudng. 81 must remark that this despatch OF
the 18Th OF February, 1859, was not communicated
TO the British government. Mr.. Fish has omitted
some important words in the next passage, which
he aliduces from Lord Russell's despatch 20 Lord
Lyons on March ~ 1868. The despatch gives an ac-
count OF
A CONVERSATION WITH MR.. ADAMS.
at the close OF which Lord Russell said that 1t was
his belief that If all the assistance given to the
iederals by British subjects and British munitions
or war were weighed against similar aid given 10
the Confederates the balance would he greatly IN
favor OF the federals. Mr.. Adams totally
denied this proposition. But, above all, he
said, there Is u manifest conspiracy in this coun-
try, OF which the Confederate 10 n Is an additional
proof, 10 produce a state OF evaporation in
America, and thus bring on war with Great
Britain, with view TO aid the Confederate cause
and secure u monopoly OF the trade OF tie Southern
states, whose Independence these conspiraofs
hope 10 establish by these lie gal and unjust meal
sureS.
Mr.. Fish omits the words ''of which the Conled-
crate loan is an additional proof which, taken
with The context show that Mr. Adams was then
speaking, not OF the case Of the Alabama but OF the
assistance in money and materials which
he considered was improperly rendered
TO the Confederate states by block
AIDE running and the cotton loan. Mr.. Adams
letters OF 18th April and 10th May, and Lord
Russel's letter OF the 4th OF May, 1855, are com
mented on IN the memorandum, part second. and
II rs unnecessary ior me TO make any further OBJ
scrVatlons on them AZ Mr. Fish does not reply 20
those which have already offered. Whatever may
nave been the purpose to require indcmninca-
anu the grievances of which complaint
was made We're IN no way idcntined
with the Alabama Gains" The despatch OF Feb
rnary ~, lsod' was not communicated to Her
MaJestys government, but, on referring TO the
third Nolnme OF the Appendix TO the American case,
To the possibility of fresh negotiations in
regard TO revision % tie Neutrality
Arbitration Both these subjects are referred 10 AZ
page 625 ana the despatch accordingly concludes
alter the paragraph quoted Nv Mr. FIsn by saving
81 think tnat the country world I've unanimnus m
declining every form OF negotiation that shonll
have in view merely prospective regulations
o. NATIONAL tNrERCuIE>E
SO long as the justice OF our existing claims FOR
indemnify is denied by Her Malesty's government,
AMI those claims are refused TO be maue subject OF
friendly but impartial examination. there can be
pref tha' the claims when Lord Russell re-
fused 90 submit 10 arbitration extended TO indircct
claims. The proposal arose IN connection with -
claim Tor the destruction Of the snip Nora, aud
other claims Of the same kind
see Mr.. Adams letter of the 23d OF october, 1867
And Lord Russell, IN reply 10 ". stated that Her
haesiys government must decline either ia make
PREPARATION and compensation for the captures
made by the Alabama, or to refer the ques'
ton TO any foreign state. | have already
pointed OUT that no importance can nc attached
To the Claims OF private citizens being spoken
o! by Mr.. seward as "our claims" The claims 0i
Citizens OF the United States against Great Britain
for damages ana by means of depredati0ns upon
our commercial marine committed OH the high seas
by the sumter and tile Alabama the Florida, the
shenandoah, ana OF which summary was an
nexed TO the despatch from Mr. Seward 20 Mr..
Adams OF the eth OF August, 1885, communicated to
Lore Stanley aud which are undcniaby private
claims are mentioned III that despatch az the
CLAIMS UPON WHICH WE INSIST
and 'tOur claims.r The next despatch referred TO.
that from Mr. seward 20 Mr.. Adams, OF the "a OF
May, was likewise not communicated to Her Ma
tests government. The context clearly shows that
the injuries from the first Gnricndly or wrongful pro-
q sdiDg referred 10 the concession OF beligclcpcy.