Mr. Seward to Mr. Johnson
Sir: Owing to the delay of the steamer, your dispatches of the 23d of December, No. 86, and 24th of December, No. 87, both of which relate to the claims convention, did not reach the department till yesterday, the 11th instant. At the same time Mr. Thornton placed in my hands a copy of a dispatch* which Lord Clarendon addressed to him on the same subject on the 24th of December. The President’s directions were immediately taken upon the subject, and the result was announced to you last night by a telegraphic dispatch† a copy of which is hereunto appended. For manifest reasons the propositions submitted by me in that cable dispatch were almost entirely unaccompanied by argument or explanation. On the other hand, it is expected and hoped that her Majesty’s government will give us their reply by cable before this or any other communication from this department transmitted by the mail can reach your legation. If that expectation shall be realized, what I now write will be useful only for ultimate reference.
We have adopted the draft of convention between Great Britain and the United States of America for the settlement of all outstanding claims, which has been submitted to us in a printed paper by her Majesty’s government, under the date of the 22d of December, with some suggested amendments on our part, which do not materially change the character of that plan, as the plan itself does not in absolutely essential particulars vary from the project which was submitted by me in my telegraphic dispatch of the 20th of December last.
The first of these amendments consists in inserting in the first article an express recognition of the so-called Alabama claims in the definition of claims which are to be settled by the convention. This amendment simply proposes to guard against a possible ground of cavil, however unreasonable, might be used to excite distrust of the convention.
The second amendment proposed consists in striking out in the second paragraph of article II these words: “If, however, it shall appear to the commissioners, or any two of them, that, from the nature of any particular claim in regard to which they may have been unable to come to a decision, it is desirable that a special arbitrator or umpire shall be named, [Page 398] to whose decision such claim shall be referred,” and insert in lieu thereof these words: “Nevertheless, if the commissioners, or any two of them, shall think it desirable that a sovereign or head of a friendly state should be arbitrator or umpire in case of any claim.”
Thus amended, the paragraph will read: “Nevertheless, if the commissioners, or any two of them, shall think it desirable that a sovereign or head of a friendly state should be arbitrator or umpire in case of any claim, the commissioners shall report to that effect to their respective governments, who shall thereupon, within six months, agree upon some sovereign or head of a friendly state, who shall be invited to decide upon such claim, and before whom shall be laid the official correspondence which has taken place between the two governments, and the other written documents or statements which may have been presented to the commissioners in respect of such claims.”
The reasons for this proposed amendment are that the phraseology, being more general, is less open to adverse criticism, insomuch as the amendment avoids all allusion to claims of any special or distinct class, and avoids the description of the arbitrator or umpire, when he is the sovereign or head of a friendly state, as a special arbitrator or umpire.
Lord Clarendon’s argument against the provision which I have heretofore proposed for an alternative designation of the arbitrator or umpire, in case the two governments shall fail to agree within six months, is not satisfactory; because, without some such provision, the convention may possibly fail of effect after its ratification. On the other hand, we deem the convention, in the form which we have now accepted it, more satisfactory than an entire failure of the negotiation.
The only further amendment which we have proposed is to strike out Lord Clarendon’s new proposition at the close of the third paragraph of article II, which is contained in the words, “The decision of the arbitrator or umpire on any particular claim so referred to him shall rule any other claims of the same class.”
This provision is deemed superfluous because there can be no reasonable ground to apprehend that an umpire who should have fairly and fully considered and decided a claim upon its merits, would make a contrary decision upon another claim of precisely the same character and merits. The provision would open the ground for cavil that one claim might be prejudiced by previous decision of the umpire made upon another claim materially dissimilar in character and merits.
I trust it is hardly necessary to say, at this late stage of the negotiation, that in my opinion the success of the convention depends not exclusively upon the nature of its provisions, but depends very much also upon the tone, temper, and spirit which pervade it.
The project which Lord Clarendon has submitted, of alterations and additions to convert the protocol on the subject of the San Juan question into a treaty, has been considered and is accepted.
In case of Lord Clarendon’s agreement to our present propositions on the claims convention, you are then authorized to sign the two conventions, and announce that fact to me by telegraph, or to assure Lord Clarendon that they will be promptly signed here if instructions shall be given to Mr. Thornton for that purpose. Our object is to submit these two conventions, either the originals or copies, together with the naturalization protocol, to the Senate of the United States as soon as the two forms shall be completed, and all at one and the same time.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
Reverdy Johnson, Esq., &c., &c., &c.