“intermediate speculators, and under pretence of not knowing the result? Informed of these preparations, would the Cabinet of Stockholm wait till the steel and the cannon furnished to its enemies had mown down its soldiers, till the vessels delivered to the rebels had annihilated its commerce and desolated its coasts, to protest against similar supplies, and to prevent them if possible? And if the protests were rejected, independently of every other measure, would it not raise its voice throughout Europe, and at the courts of all its allies, against this _act of hostility_, against this violation of the rights of sovereignty, and against this _political scandal_?”--_Causes Célèbres_, Tom. II. pp. 472-73. These are strong words, but they only give expression to the feelings naturally awakened in a Power that seemed to be imperilled by such an act. In another communication the same minister said to the Swedish Government:-- “It is the doctrine of irresponsibility which the Cabinet of Stockholm professes with regard to the sale of these war vessels, which excites the most lively representations on the part of the undersigned.”--_Note of 15 July 1825_: Ibid., p. 480. Mark the words, “the doctrine of irresponsibility.” Then, again, the minister says in other words worthy of consideration at this moment:-- “The Swedish Government on this occasion, creating this new kind of commerce, determined to furnish ships of war indiscriminately to every purchaser, even to private individuals without guaranty,--establishing, as it seems to indicate, that the commercial benefits of these sales are for the State a necessity of an order superior to political considerations the most elevated, as to moral obligations the most respectable.”--_Note of 9 September, 1825_: Ibid., p. 486. I ask if these words are not applicable to the present case? Did it not become the Government of the United States at this time, when making these large sales, almost gigantic, so that its suspicion was necessarily aroused, to institute inquiry into the real character of the purchaser? Was it not put on its guard? Every morning told us of war unhappily raging in Europe. Could there be doubt that these large purchases were for the benefit of one of the belligerents? Was our Government so situated that for the sake of these profits it would neglect political considerations called in this dispatch the most elevated, as moral obligations the most respectable? Was it ready to assume the responsibility characterized by the Spanish minister in a case less plain, as “an act of hostility,” a “violation of the rights of sovereignty,” a “political scandal”? PARLIAMENTARY LAW ON THE APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEES OF THE SENATE. TWO PROTESTS AGAINST THE COMPETENCY OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE SALE OF ARMS TO FRANCE; MARCH 26 AND 27, 1872.