58 TiiK tui:atv of Washington. 



umes folio, contains little new matter, being in part, 

 at least, defensive argument in response to the Amer- 

 ican "Case." 



The American Counter-Case, consisting of two 

 volumes folio, replies argiuiientatively to the British 

 "Case," and brings forward a large body of docu- 

 mentary proofs, responsive to matters contained iu 

 that "Case," which, although utterly foreign to the 

 (piestion at issue, re([uired to be met, because con- 

 sidered material ])y Great Britain, namely, allegations 

 of default on the i)art of the United States in the 

 execution of their own neutrality laws, to the preju- 

 dice cf other Governments. 



The introduction of all this matter into the British 

 Case, the iteration of it in the British Counter-Case 

 and the British Argiunent, and the extreme promi- 

 nence given to it, as we shall hereafter see, by the 

 British Arbitrator, serve to illustrate the singular 

 unreasonableness and injustice of tlic angiy com- 

 plaints emitted in England against the American 

 Case. 



The American Case contains no suir2:cstion which 

 is not strictly pertinent to the issues raised by the 

 Treaty. It discusses the conduct of the British Gov- 

 ernment relatively to the United States during our 

 Civil AVai", with strict application to the '■'■Alabama 

 claims." It charges that, in those transactions, the 

 British Government was guilty of culpable omission 

 to observe the re(piirements of the law of nations as 

 resjiects the United States, and with responsible neg* 

 ligencc in the nou-execution of the neutrality laws of 



