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 response to this complaint, it suffices to say that, on occasion 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 unjust, 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 labama 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 Englishman now, when the judgment of the Tribunal of Ar

bitration establishes the fact of the long denial of justice by Great Britain in this behalf, a fact admitted also by so prejudiced a person as Sir Alexander Cockburn, who speaks as ["in some sense" at least] "the representative of Great Britain."

I confidently maintain, therefore, that neither the British Government nor the people of Great Britain had any just cause, in the course of these transactions, to find fault with the spirit, temper, or language either of the Government or the Agent or Counsel of the United States. To the contrary of this, it seems to me that on our side alone is the good cause of complaint in these respects.

ATTITUDE OF THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT.

As respects the deportment of the two Governments in this crisis, certain it is that the conduct of that of Great Britain, in resting upon the American Case for nearly seven wecks, and then abruptly breaking out, in the Queen's speech from the throne and in debate in Parliament, with objections to that Case, without previous statement thereof in diplomatic communication, was uncourteous toward the United States.

The diplomatic discussion which ensued, beginning with Lord Granville's note of February 3, 1872, and terminating with the dispatch of Mr. Fish of April 16, 1872, may now be read, not with composure only, but with supreme satisfaction, by any citizen of the United States. The Secretary of State [Mr. Fish] demon. strates to conviction the utter baselessness of the pretension of the British Government that the so-called

indirect claims were not within the letter or spirit of the Treaty of Washington. And he repels throughout, peremptorily but dispassionately, the call of the British Government on the United States to withdraw this class of claims from the consideration of the Tribunal. In fine, the position of the United States is plainly expressed in different parts of the dispatches of Mr. Fish, as follows:

"They [the United States] desire to maintain the jurisdiction of the Tribunal of Arbitration over all the unsettled claims, in order that, being judicially decided, and the questions of law involved therein being adjudicated, all questions connected with or arising out of the Alabama Claims, or 'growing out of the acts' of the cruisers, may be forever removed from the possibility of disturbing the perfect harmony of relations between the two countries.

"What the rights, duties, and true interests of both the contending nations, and of all nations, demand shall be the extent, and the measure of liability and damages under the Treaty, is a matter for the supreme determination of the Tribunal established thereby.

"Should that august Tribunal decide that a State is not liable for the indirect or consequential results of an accidental or unintentional violation of its neutral obligations, the United States will unhesitatingly accept the decision.

"Should it, on the other hand, decide that Great Britain is liable to this Government for such consequential results, they have that full faith in British observance of its engagements to expect a compliance with the judgment of the Tribunal, which a solemn Treaty between the two Powers has created in order to remove and adjust all complaints and claims on the part of the United States."

The American Government could not avoid feeling that the public discussion, which the British Minis ters had seen fit to excite, or, at any rate, to aggravate,

and "the discourteous tone and minatory intimations of the Ministry," imposed on the United States a dif ferent line of action from that, which might have been adopted by them in response to a calm presentation by the British Government of its construction of the Treaty.

In this relation there is another class of facts which, as it seems to me, deserves mention.

Of the five American Commissioners engaged in the negotiation of the Treaty of Washington, two, the Secretary of State [Mr. Fish] and our Minister at London [General Schenck], were officially occu pied in discussing the question on the American Case raised by the British Government. The published dispatches show with what signal ability they dis charged this delicate duty. Meanwhile, the three other Commissioners, Mr. Justice Nelson, Mr. Hoar, and Mr. Williams, although impliedly accused on the other side of taking some advantage of the unsophis ticated innocence and simplicity of the British Com missioners, yet maintained perfect self-control in the matter, speaking only when officially called upon to speak, and otherwise leaving the subject where it be longed, in the hands of their Government.

The conduct, on the other hand, of some of the British Commissioners was less reserved than that of the American Commissioners. Professor Bernard got completely off the track of reason and sense in a lect ure which he delivered at Oxford. Sir Stafford Northcote let off a very inconsiderate speech at Ex eter. And Sir Edward Thornton made a not very

considerate one at New York. But Earl de Grey and Ripon, who had now become Marquess of Ripon, deported himself with admirable dignity. It was, indeed, wittily said, or reported to have been said, by Mr. Lowe, that Lord Ripon was going about very sick at the stomach of a marquisate, which he would be glad to throw up; but the reproach was wholly undeserved. Lord Ripon manfully maintained silence while to speak would have been unwise; when at length it became expedient to speak, he did so with discretion and with judiciousness, beyond what appeared in the speeches of some other members of the Government.

ACTION OF THE AMERICAN AGENT AND COUNSEL.

Whilst all these discussions were going on in Great Britain and the United States, we, the Agent and Counsel of the United States, were busily occupied, partly at Washington but chiefly at Paris, in the study of the British Case and the preparation of the American Counter-Case. We had fixed on Paris for our head-quarters, as a neutral city, as a great centre of international jurisprudence and diplomacy, and as a place in easy communication with London and with Washington.

From this ground of vantage we could observe and estimate correctly the current of discussion in America, in Great Britain, and on the Continent of Europe.

Speaking for myself, at least, let me say, it appear. ed to me that much of what was being said in En