Powers discovering this continent, and accepted by them as a right necessary to be extinguished either by purchase or co- quest, and that the United States, as a nation, lias also from the beginuing recognized, accepted, and acted upon this theory, it is next in order to inquire whether the United States has dealt honorably of their recognized "right of oceupaney."

In regard room for discussion whether they be honorable or dishonor- able, the standard of honor in men's conduct being, among the civilized, uniform, well understood, and ondisputed. Steal ing, for instance, is everywhere held to be dishonorable, as well as impolitie; lying, aiso, in all its forms; breaking of promises and betrayals of trust are scorned even among the most ignorant pcoplo. But when it comes to the discussion of the acts of nations, there seems to be less clearness of concep- tion, less uniformity of standard of right and wrong, honor and dishonor. or dishonorably by the Indiaus in this matter to the actions of individuals there is rarely much It is necessary, therefore, in charging a gov- ernment or nation with dishonorable conduct, to show that its moral standard ought in nowise to differ from the moral standard of an individual; that what is cowardly, cruel, base in a man, is cowardly, ernel, base in a government or nation. To do this, it is only needful to look into the history of the accepted "Taw of Nations," from the days of the Emperor Justinian until now.

The Roman jurisconsults employed Wheaton, "the two expressions, 'jus gentium,' that law which is found among all the known natious of the earth, and 'jus naturale,' founded on the general natre of mankind; nevertheless, of these two forms of the same idea, the first ought to be considered as predominant, since it as well as the jus civile was a positive law, the origin and development of which must be sought for in history."

Nations lbeing simply, as Vattel defines them, "societies of as synonymous, says