ALABAMA CLAIMS. ' 51 



war between Great Britain and Russia, iiud altliougli 

 we replied by charging in response that tlie only vio- 

 lations of neutrality committed in tlie United States 

 during that war were committed by Great Britain 

 herself, yet in the subsequent discussions not a word 

 of self - j Listification on this point was preferred by 

 the British Government. 



In regard to the second of the questions, a member 

 of Parliament [Mr. Hughes], in ignorance of the facts, 

 it is to be presumed, undertook to impugn the con- 

 duct of the Counsel of the United States, and to draw 

 inferences therefrom prejudicial to the conduct of the 

 United States in the Arbitration at Geneva. In re- 

 sponse to this complaint, it suffices to say that, on oc- 

 casion of a settlement of the claims of the Hudson's 

 Bay Company and of its shadow, the Puget's Sound 

 Agricultural Company, by mixed commission, under 

 the treaty of July, 1863, it devolved on me, in behalf 

 of the United States, to assert, and to prove to the 

 satisfaction of the Commission, that the pretensions of 

 the Pludson's Bay Company were scandalously un- 

 just, and founded on premises of exaggeration and 

 usurpation injurious to Great Britain and to the Ca- 

 nadian Dominion, as well as to the United States. 

 I have no reason to regret or qualify any thing said 

 or done by me in that affair. 



As to the third of these questions, namely, the Ala- 

 hama Claims, it seems difficult to comprehend how 

 persistent demand of redress on the part of the United 

 States can be complained of by any candid English- 

 man noii\ when the judgment of the Tribunal of Ar- 



