152 Tin: TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 



s'cxposc justcnicnt t\ cc que I'autrc bnlli^cranl suqKctc sa 

 bonne /oi.''^ 



Ill tlicse observations, "vvc see tliat the Vicomtc 

 iVItajuljii appeals to tlic same "intuitive pcrccjitions 

 of right" which arc so unpahitable to the British Ar- 

 bitrator. 



The Viconite iVItajubu does not give lis any o])in- 

 ion on tlie sul)ject of "due diligence generally consid- 

 ered f which tends to prove that his call for ai'gunient 

 on tliat point was not induced by any need on his 

 jxart for elucidation of Counsel. 



The opinions of Count Sclopis, — not only those in 

 whicii he judges the particular cases, but especially 

 those in which he discusses the (jucstions of public 

 law, as to which nicru oj)iulon was drawn i'roni the Ar- 

 bitrators, virtually at the Instance of (ireat Jh'Italn, — 

 lu'c instructive and interesting dis(|uisitions, of j)(!r- 

 niancnt value as the views of an erudite legist and a 

 practiced statesman. The paper on due diligence If^ 

 remarkable for its })rofound and comprehensive view 

 of that subject in its higher relation to the acts of 

 sovereign States. In this paper, he thoroughly exposes 

 the fallacy of the argument of Sir Koundell Palmer, 

 which Would lower the generality and the; greatness 

 of tlu! Treaty llules to the level of the munici]»al law 

 of Great Britain. 



And now, having reviewed the stipulations of the 

 Treaty In this rcsjicct, the debates attending it both 

 before and after its conclusion, the proceedings of the 

 Tribunal of Arbitration, and the separate opinions of 

 the Arbitrators, m'o come to the consideration of wlmt 



