112 THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 



able them to arrive at a just and correct conclusion,&quot; 

 &quot; to call for the assistance of the eminent counsel 

 who are in attendance on the Tribunal to assist them 

 with their reasoning and learning.&quot; 



Analyzing the proposition, and omitting the intro 

 ductory and concluding phrases of more or less irrel 

 evant and diffuse appeal to extraneous considera 

 tions, the essence of the proposition is to call on 

 Counsel to assist the Tribunal, &quot; so that arguments 

 scattered over a mass of documents may be presented 

 in a concentrated and appreciable form.&quot; 



Now, passing over the looseness and inaccuracy of 

 expression in this statement, it plainly is incorrect in 

 substance. The considerations of law or fact neces 

 sary for the instruction of the Tribunal are not &quot; scat 

 tered over a mass of documents ;&quot; they are &quot; presented 

 in a concentrated . . . form&quot; [we do not say apprecia 

 ble, because that is not a quality intelligible as ap- 

 p&d toform~] in the three arguments of each of the 

 Governments, that is to say, &quot;Cases,&quot; &quot;Counter- 

 Cases,&quot; and &quot; Arguments.&quot; The proposition betrays 

 singular confusion of mind on the part of a nisiprius 

 lawyer and judge. The subjects or elements of ar 

 gument are, it is true, &quot;scattered over a mass of doc 

 uments ;&quot; but it is quite absurd to apply this phrase 

 to the Arguments themselves, in which the two Gov 

 ernments had each labored, we may suppose, to ex 

 hibit their views of the law and the facts in a man 

 ner to be readily comprehended and appreciated by 

 the Tribunal. In the Arguments proper, filed on the 

 15th of June, each Agent had, as the Treaty requires, 



