IN THE DISCUSSION OF THE GENERAL SUBJECT OF THE AWARD TO "BE 

 RENDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL, AS TO WHICH LORD HANNEN SUB- 

 MITTED A FORM OF AWARD, SENATOR MORGAN SUBMITTED THE 

 FOLLOWING REMARKS : 



I supposed that the debate on tlie questions arising under the 

 treaty had been closed, and that the members of the tribunal would 

 now deliver their opinions, seriatim, in the order agreed upon. But Lord 

 Hannen has made some criticisms on the attitude of the United States 

 and the arguments of its counsel, that seem to open up the discussion 

 of the whole subject, and I must not allow them to pass without notice. 



As I have had occasion several times to remark, during the progress 

 of the discussion before the tribunal, this is not a litigation between 

 the United iStates and Great Britain in which a judgment can be ren- 

 dered by this tribunal in favor of one party and against the other for 

 a right asserted, or for property or damages which one party must 

 gain and the other must lose. 



The treaty, which is a law to the tribunal, provides that each party, 

 at a certain time, shall deliver its printed case to the arbitrators, and 

 to the agent of the other party, in which its claims shall be fully stated. 

 Thus two independent cases are required to be stated and submitted 

 for decision. This was done, and when it was done, the attitude of the 

 two Governments, as to the claims they respectively submitted, was 

 fixed and determined. This requirement was not observed by Great 

 Britain, but other evidence not presented and submitted either in its 

 case or counter case, was offered during the progress of the oral argu- 

 ment and was received and considered by the tribunal. 



I insist tliat these proceedings do not comprise one case, but sepa- 

 rate cases. They are to be heard together, but they are not cross 

 actions, neither arc they co:isolidatcd actions, as is sometimes the 

 72 



