In 1891 our own Government, however, sought such a concession, only to find the Haitian government unfavorably disposed toward it. Mention must also be made of the so-called Guano Islands, of which Americans have from time to time taken possession in great numbers. In 1856 Congress enacted a law providing that whenever an American citizen should discover a deposit of guano on any island, rock, or key not within the lawful jurisdiction of any other Government and not occupied by the citizens or subjects of any other, and should take peaceable possession of it, such island should, at the discretion of the President, be regarded as appertaining to the sovereignty of the United States. Under this law possession was taken of a large number of islands, in the Caribbean Sea and in the Pacific Ocean. Some of these have been held permanently, while others were abandoned as soon as the deposits of guano were exhausted. Concerning some of them controversies arose with other nations. Thus Alta Vela was claimed by Santo Domingo, Arcas and Arenas by Mexico, Aves by Venezuela, Cayo Verde by Great Britain, the Lobos Islands by Peru, Navassa by Haiti, Quito Sereno by Colombia, Serrano Keys by Honduras, and Vivorilla Key by Nicaragua. In the Pacific Ocean several such islands, including Christmas, Fanning, Starbuck, and others, were taken by the United States, held for some years, and then abandoned, whereupon they were appropriated by Great Britain. XXIV BRITISH RELATIONS HE tension in American relations with Great Britain which THE had prevailed during most of the Civil War was little abated at the conclusion of that struggle. In some respects indeed it was intensified. Many Englishmen had invested large sums in Confederate securities, which were now rendered worthless, and this embittered them against the triumphant Federal Government. Many Confederates removed to England rather than return to the jurisdiction of the United States, and they bore with them their enmity toward this country. Nor was more aggressive marplotry lacking. An Irish revolutionary organization known as the Fenian Brotherhood was formed, with headquarters in New York. Its avowed object was to make Ireland an independent republic, but its more or less concealed purpose was to effect that end through using the United States as a base of violent operations against England and through this embroiling this country in a war with the United Kingdom. This design was much promoted by the resentment which was felt against Great Britain for her conduct during the war, and the Irish adventurers received much popular support, in both sympathy and money. This movement culminated in 1866 in an armed raid by the Fenians from New York State and Vermont across the border into Canada, for purposes of destruction and loot. The marauders were quickly driven back again, and then were compelled by the American authorities to disband and to disperse to their homes. But the incident, trivial in itself, considerably embittered the ill-feeling between the two countries. There were not wanting, indeed, those high in place and influence who publicly urged that the Fenians should be recognized as belligerents, and should be permitted to fit out in American ports privateers to prey upon British commerce. These preposterous counsels were happily not adopted, but the House of Representatives did go so far as to pass unanimously an astound ing amendment to the neutrality law which, if enacted, would have permitted warships and military expeditions to be fitted out in this country against friendly powers with which we were at peace. When war broke out between Great Britain and Abyssinia one of the foremost members of the Senate-Zachariah Chandler-offered a resolution recognizing the possession by Abyssinia of all the belligerent rights which Great Britain had accorded to the Confederacy. No sense of humor was sufficient to save Anglophobes from the folly of trying to accord maritime privileges to an inland State! Meantime it was recognized on both sides that there were diplomatic questions of the greatest possible moment which must at some time be settled between the two countries. As early as October, 1863, Adams at London assured Russell that there was no equitable form of arbitration to which the United States would not be willing to submit her claims against England for breaches of neutrality. Two years later, after the end of the war, Russell specifically refused to consider submitting the question of the Alabama and her ravages to arbitration, on the ground that the law officers of the British crown were the supreme interpreters of the British neutrality law. His Government was ready, however, he added, to consent to the appointment of a commission to which should be referred the general question of claims arising out of the war, no claim to be submitted to it, however, without the assent of the Government. That meant, of course, that the commission if appointed would not be permitted to discuss the Alabama; an attitude which was regarded even in England as a regrettable mistake on Russell's part, and which had here the effect of provoking Seward to refuse the suggestion of a commission and to declare that there would be no waiver or abandonment of the full measure of our claims on account of the Alabama. A little later Russell retired from the foreign secretaryship and was succeeded by Lord Stanley, who was somewhat more favorably inclined toward an amicable adjustment of the differences between the nations. In November, 1866, the new prime minister, Lord Derby, publicly announced that the British government would be willing to enter into negotiations for the settlement of the Alabama claims, and in January following the British minister at Washington was instructed to inform Seward that arbitration of those claims would be accepted. The question of premature recognition of Confederate belligerency could, however, not be thus submitted, since, according to the publicly proclaimed principles of the United States itself, every State must be a law unto itself in judging of that matter. Seward declined to accept arbitration, unless that question of premature recognition could be included, insisting that the British recognition of the Confederacy had been without justification and without warrant either in treaties or in the law of nations. At the same time he made it clear that the United States did not demand any pecuniary indemnity from Great Britain on account of the Alabama, excepting, of course, for individual sufferers; but merely vindication of the principles of neutrality. A little later he directed Adams to call British attention to certain other matters of difference, any one of which might "at any moment become a subject of exciting controversy." Chief among these were the question of naturalization, and the trial and conviction at Dublin for "treasonfelony" of certain American citizens of Irish birth who had been concerned in the Fenian business. Seward suggested that the best way to lay a broad foundation for friendly relations between the two countries would be to have a conference at which all the matters in dispute might be dispassionately considered. Adams, after a career of singular distinction and usefulness, resigned his place as minister to Great Britian in December, 1867, and retired from it in the following May. He was succeeded by Reverdy Johnson, an eminent jurist and accomplished diplomat, who promptly took up the matters on which Adams had been engaged. Acting under Seward's instructions he considered first the question of naturalization, in which the United States was contending for the principle of voluntary expatriation. A treaty had just been concluded with the North German Union, on February 22, 1868, under which the naturalization of German subjects in America, after an uninterrupted residence of five years, was recognized, regardless of the assent or dissent of the German government at their original expatriation. and this greatly strengthened the demand that England should recognize the same sane principle. So important did Seward regard this that he declared the consideration of it to be a sine qua non to everything else. The second demand was for adjudication of the boundary between Oregon and British Columbia, known as the San Juan water boundary. The third was the matter of claims arising from the Civil War. Johnson reached England in August, 1866, and entered upon his task to so good effect that on October 9 following he and Stanley were able to sign a protocol on the subject of naturalization; on October 17 one on the San Juan boundary; and on November 10 one on the war claims. Seward objected to the last named, because it provided for the sitting of the conference at London instead of Washington, and because it discriminated between the Alabama claims and others in the method of determination. Johnson took these points up with Lord Clarendon, who had succeeded Stanley, and on January 14, 1869, signed a new convention in accordance with Seward's instructions, under which all claims were to be treated alike. On the same day a treaty was signed submitting the San Juan boundary dispute to the arbitration of the President of the Swiss Confederation. The President and the secretary of state were much pleased with the Johnson-Clarendon claims convention, and were confident that if it were ratified and executed this country would recover every dollar justly due to it for indemnity for injuries received during the war through British breaches of neutrality. But it was not to be ratified. Seward promptly perceived this. There were two reasons. One was the hateful spirit of faction, which was just then raging at a pitch unknown since the days of the elder Adams, seventy years before. Nothing that President Johnson and his associates could do would be acceptable to his political foes, who were in full control of Congress. The other was the demand for "national" or "indirect" claims, which had arisen in the United States and which was being passionately urged by some of the leading public men. Charles Sumner was perhaps foremost in this extreme demand. A man of spotless integrity-"the whitest soul I ever knew," as one eulogist not extravagantly described him-and of commanding ability, he was also intemperate in his prejudices and passions, and was possessed of an excessive self-esteem. He took the perfectly untenable ground that the British government should be |