ALABAMA CLAIMS. 1389 
ander, even he must have seen that, in confessing and 
proving the guilt of his Government, he estops him. 
self from denying the justice of the accusation pre- 
ferred by the United States. 
But the point of honor was considered when the 
Treaty was signed. How strangely Sir Alexander 
forgets the attitude in which this objection stands in 
Lord Russell’s correspondence with Mr. Adams. If 
there was any question of honor in the controversy, 
that it was which forbade a treaty of arbitration, as 
Lord Russell constantly maintained. But three suc- 
cessive Foreign Ministries, represented by Lord Stan- 
ley, Lord Clarendon, and Lord Granville, had rightly 
decided that the question at issue did not involve the 
honor of the British Government. Sir Alexander 
wastes his words over a dead issue, utterly buried out 
of sight by the stipulations of the Treaty of Wash: 
ington. 
Mr. John Lemoinne expresses the judgment of Eu- 
rope, and anticipates that of history, in condemning 
Sir Alexander’s “vehemence of polemic and bitter- 
ness of discussion, so extraordinary in an official doc- 
ument.” 
Strangely enough, the Saturday Leview, which pre- 
tends to see “scurrility” in the American Case and 
Argument, where it does not exist, is blind to it in 
the “ Reasons,” where it is a flagrant fact. 
Meanwhile, there is nothing accusatory of Great 
Britain in the American Case;—there is nothing of 
earnest inculpation of the British Government in the 
American Argument,—which is not greatly exceeded 
