the historical attitude of the United States, in this rela

tion.

66

In spite, says Fioré, "of the efforts of Hollan 1 and of Scandinavia, the cause of Neutrals found no real support until there arose a powerful State to maintain. their common rights. It was not in truth before the constitution of the potent neutral State of the United States of America, which was followed by the league of the Armed Neutrality in the seas of Europe, that the right of Neutrals, having solid support to stand on, began to develop itself progressively, until that right reached its assured triumph, in resolving by principles of justice the multifarious questions which had agitated past ages.

We need not stop to enquire against what Power it was that these efforts for the development and establishment of neutral rights were directed by the neutral Powers which acted in concert to that great end."

The Counsel of the United States may be permitted, in view of the express or implied charges of the British Case and Counter-Case, to regard with satisfaction, if not with pride, the part thus accorded to their country, in the maintenance of neutral rights, and the discharge of neutral duties alike, by the impartial voice of Europe."

1 Fioré, Nouveau Droit International Public suivant les Besoins de la Civilisation Moderne, tome II, p. 388.

2 See Cauchy, Droit Maritime, tome I, Préf.; Cussy, Phases, etc., Préf. 3 Among the matters which the British Case or Counter Case intro duces to attention, are several which are too insignifican: for notice in the text, but which may need a word of commentary.

John Laird, ex-partner and father of "John Laird, Sons and Co.," appears making statements against the United States.

The Lairds, it would seem, wou'd better hide their heals. And it

would seem that Great Britain, who largely by their means has been involved in acts, which profoundyl, and perhaps permanently, disturb her relations with the United States, had had quite enough of such persons.

As witnesses, they are worthless. Laird, senoir, dishonoured himself by deceptive statements in the House of Commons with respect to the operations of Laird, Sons and Co The time when he could win applause there by boastful hostility to the United States has passed. Neither Lord Palmerston, if living, nor Lord Russell, if in the House of Commons, nor Mr. Gladstone himself, could look with complacency to- lay on the shipbuilding firm, which so zealously served the Confederates, to the injury alike of Great Britain and of the United States.

1. John Laird says that a man-of-war was built in the Uited States for Russia, and delivered to her during her late war with Great Britain. Proof: a newspaper state nent in the Times. Laird aid the Times are both mistaken. The case of the "Maury," mentioned by Sir Ro-indell Palmer, shows that at this period British officers, in America, while engaged in violating the American Foreign Enlistment Act themselves, were watchful to prevent its violation by Russia.

Laird communicated to Lord Teuter len, December 12, 1871, copies of letters between Laird, Sons and Co. and Mr. H., an Ameri an, who corresponded with the former on the subject of building a ship or ships for the United States. The correspondence shows that Mr. H. was a mere speculator on his own account. wholly without any authority from the Secretary of the Navy of the United States? "Our Department of Naval Affairs" as he ignorantly calls it, and our "Minister of the Navy;" which expressions alone ought to have satisfied the Lairds that they were being victimized by some ingenuou New Yorker. Mr. H. abusively referred to the Secretary of the Navy to promote his own private interests or those of the Lairs.

John Laird, in the zeal of his sympathy with the rebelli n, made the same statement in the House of Commons long ago, and was flatly contradicted by Mr. Welles, the American Secretary of the Navy.

The superserviceable Mr. H. had no commission from the American Government He began to treat orally with the Lairds, early in 1861, before the arrival of Mr. Adams in England. No officer of the United States appears to have countenanced Mr. H.; but the Navy Department, according to Mr. Welies, was importuned by more than one person in behalf of Mr. Laird. If Mr. H was the agent of any body, it was of the Lairds.

un

The British Government must be in desperate straights for defence, when it condescends to resuscita e the stale calumnies of homme taré," like John Laird, and to put them into its Case.

2. In this connexion we dispose of another of the smaller items of accusotion of the United States.

It is charged in the British Case that we purchased arms in England. What then? Was it not lawful to do so, according to the accepted aw of nat ons?

Thi charge is another illustration of the injustice of that act of the British Government, which assumed to put the United States and their rebels on a footing of international equality in the markets of Great Britain.

Not thus have the United States deported themselves towards Spain in the matter of Cuba.

V.

STATEMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL FACTS

PERTINENT

ΤΟ THE ENQUIRY, BOTH OF A GENERAL NATURE, AND APPLICABLE TO EACH PARTICULAR CRUISER.

The United States in their Case, which was delivered to the Tribunal of Arbitration on the 15th day of December last, presented evidence to establish the following facts:

1. That before the outbreak of the insurrection in the United States, Her Majesty's Government invited the Government of the French Emperor to act jointly with the British Government in the anticipated rising of the insurgents.

2. That before an armed collision had taken place, Her Majesty's Government determined to recognize the insurgents as belligerents, whenever the insurrection should break out.

3. That, in accordance with the previous invitation to the French Government, Her Majesty's Government announced its decision so to recognize the insurgents, and

invited France to do the same, as soon as it heard of the outbreak of the insurrection, and before it had official information of the steps which the Government of the United States proposed to take for the suppression of the same.

4. That after the announcement of this decision was made, and before the Queen's Proclamation was issued in accordance therewith, the attention of Her Majesty's Government was called in both Houses of Parliament to results which it was supposed would follow the recognition of the insurgents as belligerents; viz : that they would be entitled to carry on war on the ocean, and to issue letters-of-marque.

5. That, simultaneously with the invitation to the French Government to join in the recognition of the insurgents as belligerents, that Government was invited to join Her Majesty's Government in an effort to obtain from the insurgents certain advantages to British and French commerce, on the condition, held out in advance, that the right of the insurgents to issue letters-of marque should not be questioned.

6. That these steps were taken clandestinely, without the knowledge of the United States; and that the desired advantages were obtained, and the right of the insurgents to issue letters-of-marque was recognized.

7. That these unfriendly acts, committed before or soon after the outbreak of the insurrection, were supplemented by other unfriendly acts injurious to the United States and partial towards the insurgents.

8. That they were also supplemented by public speeches made by various members of Her Majesty's Government, at various times, throughout the war, showing that the speakers had personal sympathies with the insur