No. 73.
General Schenck to Mr. Fish.
Your telegram of yesterday received and communicated to Lord Granville. He said he would confine himself to one remark, namely, that your statement at the beginning from the words “he raises,” down to the word “views,” was inexplicable to him. What had been the course they had pursued? They had at the request of the Government of the United States draughted an Article founded on an idea of that Government. The Government of the United States had amended that Article, and in answer they had not merely stated an objection to the amendment, but had draughted are amended Article for their consideration. He said he would not make any further argument until he had submitted to his colleagues the communication which had just been made to him. I stated that I did not wish to go into any argument, but would just state again what was my view of the present situation and difference between us, though it was but repeating former statements. I said to him, “I assume that your object, like ours, is to affirm the principle that neutrals are not to be held liable for indirect and remote damages, which may be the result of a failure to observe neutral obligations, and to establish that principle as a rule to be observed between our two nations. Your proposed form of Article, as it was amended by the Senate, we think does that. You think it is too vague. We think your proposal, either as originally made or as modified by your proposed amendment of the language of the Senate, would be altogether uncertain, as a rule in practice confines itself to hypothetical cases which may never occur, and, instead of recognizing and applying the general principle, limits the rule to some three classes only of indirect claims, being those which are put forward by the United States in their Case at Geneva.” The Cabinet is now in session.