Again it is said that our good name cannot be compromised by these suspicions. This is a mistake. Any suspicion of wrong is a compromise, all the more serious when it concerns not only money, but the violation of neutral obligations. And the actual fact is precisely according to reason. Now while we debate, the national character is compromised at Paris, at London, at Berlin, at Geneva, where all these things are known as much as in this Chamber. But your indifference, especially after this debate, will not tend to elevate the national character either at home or abroad. Such are some of the objections to which I reply. They are words only, as Hamlet says, “Words, words, words.” From words let us pass to things. * * * * * Mr. President, I come now to the simple question before the Senate, which I presented originally, whether there is not sufficient reason for inquiry into the sale of arms during the French and German War. I state the question thus broadly. The inquiry is into the sale of arms; and this opens two questions,--first, of international duty; and, secondly, of misfeasance in our officials, the latter involving what may be compendiously called the money question. My object is simply to show grounds for inquiry; and I naturally begin with the rule of international duty. In the discharge of neutral obligations a nation is bound to _good faith_. This is the supreme rule, to which all else is subordinate. This is the starting-point of all that is done. Without good faith neutral obligations must fail. In proportion to the character of this requirement must be the completeness of its observance. There can be no evasion, not a jot. Any evasion is a breach, without the bravery of open violation. But evasion may be sometimes by closing the eyes to existing facts, or even by acting without sufficient inquiry. These things are so plain and entirely reasonable as to be self-evident. Now nothing can be more clear than that no neutral nation is permitted to furnish arms and war material to a belligerent power. Such is a simple statement of the law. I do not cite authorities, as I did it amply on a former occasion.[5] But there is an excellent author whom I would add to the list as worthy of consideration, especially at this moment, in view of the loose pretensions put forth in the debate. I refer to Mr. Manning, who, in his Commentaries, thus teaches neutral duty:-- “It is no interference with the right of a third party to say that he shall not carry to my enemy instruments with which I am to be attacked. Such commerce is, on the other hand, a deviation from neutrality,--or rather would be so, _if it were the act of a State_ and not of individuals.”[6]