tor, to examine this edition of
Wheaton, and state his own opinion thereof: to him we are indebted for
the following clear and palpable instances of a perverted use of a
standard American treatise, endeared to many living friends of the
author, and all his intelligent and patriotic countrymen: of the
'additions' to the original by the editor, he says:

'1. They indicate considerable reading and industry, but are far
too voluminous, and abound in extended extracts from speeches,
state papers, and statutes, which should have been omitted
altogether, or very much abridged.

'2. They contain no language complimentary to the Administration,
little or nothing in defence of the Government--none that can be
offensive to Jefferson Davis; and, as a whole, they give the
impression that he regards the Confederate position as being quite
as defensible, on the principles of international law, as that of
the United States.

'3. He has no word of censure for Lord John Russell, and no word
of apology for Mr. Seward. He nowhere calls the Confederates
_rebels_, and nowhere thinks the conduct of France suspicious or
unfriendly.

'4. His positions are unquestionably the same with those of
Seymour, Bishop Hopkins, Professor Morse, Judge Woodward, etc.

'5. He is everywhere cold--more willing to wound than bold to
strike; and yet he fretfully commits himself before he gets
through, in defence of slavery and extreme democratic positions.

'6. He does not pretend that he was ever requested by the great
author with whose productions he has taken such liberties to
undertake the editorial duties.

'His language is so general that one needs to read it carefully to
feel the full force of what I have said.

'In the preface (page 1-20), he speaks of 'Spanish American
independence, now jeopardized by our _fratricidal_
contest'--fratricidal is indeed a favorite word; he uses it in an
offensive sense as regards the United States. Page 99, note, he
says of slavery, what is utterly untrue, that 'the Constitution
recognized it as property, and pledges the Federal Government to
protect it.' The noble act of June 19, 1862, forbidding slavery in
United States Territories, he comments on in this wise: 'This act
wholly ignores the decision of the Supreme Court (meaning the Dred
Scott c