No. 125.
Mr. Fish to General Schenck.
Washington, February 20, 1873.
Sir: I have your No. 342 with the debate in Parliament on the Queen’s speech. It may be not of much importance at this time, in an international point of view, to correct what seems to be an error on the part of Mr. Gladstone, when in his discussion with Mr. Horsman he is reported as saying that the expression of regret by Great Britain contained in the Treaty of Washington “was not in the nature of a condition precedent.” The facts, I think, will scarce sustain Mr. Gladstone’s denial, and, without a desire to provoke any discussion, it may be well to place on the archives of your legation some facts in connection with this question.
The appointment of the Joint High Commission was preceded by informal negotiations between Sir John Rose and myself. The first interview between us took place on the 9th January, 1871, when Sir John introduced the subject by saying “he had been requested by the British Government, informally and unofficially,” &c., “to ascertain what could be done for settling the pending questions between the two Governments, and that he was authorized to say that if it would be acceptable to the Government of the United States to refer all those subjects to a joint commission, framed something upon the model of the commission which made the treaty of Ghent, he could say that the British Government were prepared to send out such a commission on their part.” At this interview I insisted, among other things, that Great Britain should, in some form, admit her liability, at least with respect to the Alabama, “and should couple the statement with an expression of regret for what had taken place to disturb the relations of the two countries; that less than this the United States ought not to be, and would not be, satisfied with.”
Several interviews took place between the 9th and 24th January. Sir John Rose submitted a paper, which was copied and returned to him. A counter paper was prepared, and on the 24th January it was read to Sir John, but, for reasons stated to him, was not formally given to him; it was, however, fully discussed, and he was furnished confidentially with a copy with the understanding that it was a crude paper, and did not represent my views, except so far as it agreed with the purport of the conversation then had. During the discussion with him on 24th January, I said, with regard to what the paper contained relating to the [Page 587] admission of liability on the Alabama claims, that “on consultation, I had concluded that it was not best to make that specific statement, but instead thereof, to say that it would be essential that some important concessions should be made as to that class of claims, and some expression of regret at what had been done? My language in the paper was: “It is necessary, and due to candor, to note that, unless Great Britain is willing to, and to express some kind words of regret for past occurrences, it would be better to take no steps.”
Sir John gave me a copy of a telegram which he sent to Lord Granville, bearing date January 24, in which occurs the following sentence: “The Government hope, also, that in the course of the Protocols some expressions of regret not inconsistent with the dignity of England, nor involving admission of national wrong, may be made.” We had now progressed so far as to render the appointment of the Joint Commission a strong probability, and I desired official assurance that the British Government would make the expression of regret, without which we should have proceeded no further. I was then furnished a copy of a telegram from Earl Granville to Sir Edward Thornton, dated 25 January, 1871, saying: “We adhere to arbitration as to the point of international law on the Alabama question, but we should express regret at the fact of escape and depredations; we do not object to points properly selected for arbitration,” &c., &c.
Having this assurance, the notes between Sir Edward Thornton and myself, preliminary to the appointment of the Commission, were passed.
I am, &c.,