^ CO THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 



notliing outside of an Act of Parliament, tliey Lad no 

 sucli Act until 1819, and were therefore, prior to that 

 time, confessedly impotent, and w^e might have added 

 willfully so, to observe the duties of neutrality ; we 

 might have scrutinized her national history to select 

 conspicuous examples of her acts of violence, in dis- 

 reo-ard of the law of nations, a2;ainst numerous States, 

 including ourselves; we might have appealed to ev- 

 ery volume of international law in existence, from the 

 time of Grotius to this day, and cited page after page 

 to the conclusion of the imjust international policy 

 of Great Britain ; and we might have argued from all 

 this to infer intentional omission of the British Gov- 

 ernment to prevent the escape of the Alahama and 

 the Florida. 



But such arguments, you will sa}^, would have been 

 forced, remote, of doubtful relevance, and of a nature 

 oifensive to England. Be it so : they would, if you 

 please, have been irrelevant, impertinent, offensive. 

 And no such arguments are 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 member of the Tribunal. In- 

 stead of defending its own conduct in the matter 

 at issue, the British Government travels out of the 

 record to find fault with the conduct of the United 

 States at other times, and wdth 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 



