58 THE TREATY OF "WASHINGTON. 



iiniGS 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 argumeiltatively to the British 

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

 mentary proofs, responsive to matters contained in 

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

 question at issue, required to be met, because con- 

 sidered material by Great Britain, namely, allegations 

 of default on the part of the United States in the 

 execution of their own neutrality laws, to the preju- 

 dice of other Governments. 



The introduction of all this matter into the British 

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

 and the British Argument, 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 the angry com- 

 plaints emitted in England against the American 

 Case. 



The American Case contains no suir2;estion 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 War, with strict application to the ^^Alahama 

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

 British Government was guilty of culpable omission 

 to observe the requirements of the law of nations as 

 respects the United States, and with responsible neg- 

 ligence in the non-execution of the neutrality laws of 



