GO Tin: THKATY OK WASHINGTON. 



notliing outsiilc of an Act of Parlianiont, tlioy liad no 

 such Act until 1810, and were tliereforc, i)rior to that 

 tiiiu*, confossL'dly ini])()tent, and wc might liavc added 

 uillfidly so, to oIjsctvc the duties of neutrality; wc 

 might have scrutinized lier national liistory to select 

 conspicuous e.\am])les of her acts of violence, in dis* 

 regard of the law of nations, against numerous States, 

 including ourselves; wo might luive api)ealed to ev- 

 ery volume of international law in existence, from the 

 time of (J rutins to this day, and cited page after page 

 to the conclusion of the unjust internatiomd policy 

 of (Jreat Hritain ; and wc might have argued from all 

 this to infer intentional omission of the British Gov* 

 ernment to prevent the escape of the Ahdxinia and 

 the FionWd. 



iUit such arguments, you will say, would have hecn , 

 forced, remote, of doubtful I'elevanco, and of a nature 

 ulVensive to England, lie it so: they would, if you 

 please, have been irrelevant, impertinent, otlensive. 

 And no such arguments arc found in the American 

 Case. 



But such are the arguments which pervade the 

 British Case, Counter- Case, and Argument, and the 

 opinions of the British liiembcr of the Tribunal. In- 

 stead of defending its own conduct in the matter 

 at issue, the British Govermnent travels out of the 

 record to ilnd faidt with the conduct of the United 

 States at other times, and with respect to other na- 

 tions. It presumes to take upon itself the function 

 of personating Spain, Portugal, Nicaragua, and to drag 

 before the Tribunal at Geneva controversies between 



