of the public law of the world.” Having this declaration in mind, Kossuth said: “It was a beautiful word of a distinguished son of Massachusetts (Mr. Webster), which I like to repeat, that every nation has precisely the same interest in international law that a private individual has in the laws of his country.” Mr. Webster’s speech did not justify the inference which Kossuth drew from it; but the speech itself was much less reserved than that which Mr. Webster delivered in 1852, when he held the office of Secretary of State, and spoke for the administration, at a banquet given in the city of Washington in Kossuth’s honor.
When Kossuth had abandoned the hope, which his intense interest in the fate of his country had inspired, that the United States might act in behalf of Hungary, he yet returned again and again to the subject. On one occasion he said: “I take it for an axiom that there exist interests common to every nation comprised within the boundaries of the same civilization. I take it equally for certain that among these common interests none is of higher importance than the principles of international law.” Nor did he hesitate to say that our indifference to the spread of “absolutism” would be attended with serious and grievous consequences: “To look indifferently at these encroachments is as much as a spontaneous abdication of the position of a power on earth. And that position abandoned, is independence abandoned.” He declared that neutrality did “not involve the principles of indifferentism to the violation of the law of nations”; and he attempted to stimulate the national pride by the declaration that neutrality was the necessity of weak states, like Belgium and Switzerland, whose neutrality was due to the rivalry of other powers, and not to their own will.
These appeals were in vain, although they were made in language most attractive, and although the sympathies of the people were sincere and active in behalf of Hungary. His
