DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE AND FOREIGN RELATIONS. 



317 



extent adequate to the emergency, I find that pro- 

 posal positively declined, it seems to me that here 

 again the parallel sought to be made utterly fails. 



I would respectfully ask whether, in the correspond- 

 ence just laid before your Lordship, there be any 

 language similar to that which his Lordship, in one 

 of the notes which he did me the honor to address 

 me, used to me : 



Surely we are not bound to go on making new laws ad 

 infinitum because new occasions arise. 



Here I would respectfully submit that if his Lord- 

 ship be right in his assertion that new laws ad 

 infinitum are not required by new occasions, it is 

 difficult to explain the reason for the existence of so 

 many legislative bodies and such multiplied statute 

 books. Surely the Government which I represent, 

 would not have so repeatedly acceded to the solici- 

 tations of her Majesty's Government as it has done, 

 to "make new laws for new occasions," under any 

 other plea. 



But I am in candor bound to observe that, even in 

 this doctrine, there has been during the late struggle 

 a singular variation in the practice of her Majesty's 

 Government, which I ask your Lordship's permission 

 to point out. 



At a very early date the exposed nature of the 

 frontier bordering upon Canada became so much 

 a subject of anxiety to my Government that I was 

 instructed to bring the matter to the attention of 

 his Lordship, with a view to the establishment of 

 more effective preventive measures on the Canadian 

 side than were thought to be then within reach. To 

 that end, in the early part of December, 1863, in a 

 conversation which I had the honor to hold with his 

 Lordship, after explaining the reasons of my Govern- 

 ment for the danger apprehended in this quarter, I 

 proceeded to propose the adoption of a form of law 

 on the part of Canada resembling that which had 

 been enacted on our part in 1838, to meet a similar 

 emergency then happening there. It is true that for 

 a considerable period I had no reason to presume 

 that this proposal had been more favorably received 

 than any other of the same kind I had been called to 

 make. But when, one year later, information was 

 received of the extreme peril into which Canada had 

 been thrown by the violent enterprise executed by 

 some of the insurgents established in that province 

 upon the peaceful town of St. Albans, I then had the 

 satisfaction of learning from his Lordship that the 

 suggestion had been adopted so far aa that her Maj- 

 esty's Government had recommended to the author- 

 ities of Canada to procure the enactment of the sug- 

 gested law. 



In this case, then, it is clear that the imminent 

 danger of a rupture between the two countries had 

 brought on an acknowledgment of the necessity of 

 going on to "make a new law to meet a new occa- 

 sion." But surely her Majesty's Government would 

 not be willing to give even a color to an inference 

 that nothing but a necessity to avoid a war would be 

 a sufficient motive to induce it to recognize an obli- 

 gation to make a new law. If the reasons for the 

 suggestion were equally valid in all cases, I fail to 

 perceive upon what principle the nature of the answer 

 should be made to depend upon the merely aco'dental 

 pressure of the circumstances attending the moment 

 it was made. 



Without pressing this topic further, I would then 

 beg to observe that in any event, however the facts 

 attending the Portuguese claim as now explained 

 may be viewed, one thing is indisputable, and that is 

 that there is a wide divergency in the nature of the 

 two cases sought to be brought together. It is plain 

 that neither in the commencement, nor in the pro- 

 ceedings under the existing laws, nor yet in the mode 

 of treating the suggestion of new legislation, was there 

 any resemblance whatever in the tone or the action 

 of the respective Governments. Hence I am con- 

 strained to arrive at the conclusion that, whatever 

 may be thought of the conduct of the Government 



of the United States in its relation toward Portugal, 

 there is no parallel to it in that of Great Britain to- 

 ward the United States by which the latter may be 

 tested in the way of justification. Considered as a 

 precedent, for which alone the case seems to have 

 been quoted by his Lordship, I must insist that tbo 

 evidence entirely fails to establish its authority. 



On a general review of these marked differences, 

 considered in the light of the rule of international 

 law laid down at the outset of this letter, it may now 

 be said that one Government appears to have done 

 all that it was reasonably asked to do, and all that it 

 could do, to preserve its neutrality ; while the other 

 certainly could have done more, but deliberately re- 

 fused, and accepted the responsibility of that refusal. 



Hence, I must respectfully submit that before his 

 Lordship concludes to adopt the language used by 

 the United States in answer to Portugal, he should 

 be prepared with proof to show that he has likewise 

 adopted the action on which they based it. 



I should here gladly close my portion of this long 

 controversy if it were not that his Lordship has, in 

 his note to which I now have the honor to reply, 

 thought fit to open a new matter which I cannot de- 

 cline to notice. 



It has happened in the course of this extended dis- 

 cussion that he has, on more than one occasion, 

 deigned to give me the fruits of his examination of 

 various points of history in my own country. In the 

 first instance, his Lordship was pleased to apprise me 

 that Spain had never received any compensation for 

 the claims of her citizens against" the United States. 

 By the aid of a little light I think I succeeded in dis- 

 persing that illusion, so that it has not been made to 

 appear again. Again, his Lordship was pleased to 

 inform me that the Enlistment Acts of the respective 

 countries were in their main provisions similar and 

 coextensive. Here I respectfully pointed out to his 

 attention the fact that certain important provisions 

 were contained in the one that were not to be found 

 in the other; provisions which we, at least, regarded 

 as having proved in practice the most efficient in the 

 whole law. 



His Lordship, in the note to which I am now replv- 

 ing, has been kind enough to take notice of this dif- 

 ference, and goes on to describe the nature of the 

 provisions he had overlooked ; but it appears to be 

 only for the purpose of trying to convince me that in 

 my statement of their superior efficacy I am utterly 

 wrong. Hence, the argument appears to follow 

 somewhat after this fashion : his Lordship having 

 proved to his satisfaction that those provisions of the 

 law which her Majesty's Government did not adopt 

 were as susceptible of evasion as all the others which 

 it did adopt, it must necessarily follow that her Maj- 

 esty's Government were fully justified in declining 

 a proposal to make any amendment whatever of its 

 existing statute. 



To which I would respectfully venture to reply 

 that, even had the result proved to be as supposed!, 

 yet the position of her Majesty's Government, if it 

 had consented to make the experiment, would have 

 been, at least in my eye, infinitely stronger than it is 

 now. It might then have replie'd to allcomplaints, 

 as_the United States replied to Portugal, that every 

 thing in its power had been done, even to the extent 

 desired by the complaining party. Whereas, by a 

 refusal to recognize the justice of the request, it "ap- 

 pears to have placed itself in the attitude of a party 

 deliberately assuming the responsibility of declining 

 to use those powers legitimately within its reach 

 wherewith to fulfil its most imperative obligations. 



But I am constrained to go further, and affirm that 

 I can by no means subscribe to the opinion which his 

 Lordship is pleased to express as to the ineffective 

 nature of the provisions of the law to which he has 

 referred. It is not without extreme surprise that I 

 find him use the precise language respecting it which 

 I beg permission here to quote : 



Now, I contend, first, that for t*>n years these provisions 



