ALABAMA CLAIMS. 51 
war between Great Britain and Russia, and although 
we replied by charging in response that the only vio- 
lations of neutrality committed in the United States 
during that war were committed by Great Britain 
herself, yet in the subsequent discussions not a word 
of self-justification 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 Hudson’s Bay Company were scandalously un- 
just, and founded on premises of exaggeration and 
usurpation injurious té 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 A/a- 
bama 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 now, when the judgment of the Tribunal of Ar: 
