ALABAMA CLAIMS. 113 



delivered &quot; to each of the said Arbitrators and to the 

 Agent of the other party a written or printed argu 

 ment showing the points and referring to the evi 

 dence on which his Government relies.&quot; These &quot; Ar 

 guments &quot; were freshly in the possession of the Arbi 

 trators. To call on Counsel/or the reason assigned, 

 to reargue the matters therein argued, was just as 

 unreasonable as it would be for a judge presiding at 

 a hearing in common law, equity, or admiralty, to 

 call on the counsel, who have just finished their ar 

 guments, to do something for the &quot;assistance&quot; of the 

 Court, it would be difficult to see what, to the end 

 &quot; that arguments scattered over a mass of documents 

 may.be presented in a concentrated and appreciable 

 form.&quot; And if in this case such arguments had been 

 filed in print, it would be natural for counsel to say 

 that they had just done the thing required of them, 

 as the Court would perceive if it would please to 

 read those arguments : which, in the present case, it 

 would seem, Sir Alexander had neglected to do ; and, 

 instead of doing it, he had got bewildered by plung 

 ing unpreparedly into the &quot; mass of documents&quot; filed 

 by the two Governments. 



After discussion, the Tribunal decided to proceed 

 with the case of the Florida, according to the pro 

 gramme of Mr. Sttempfli, that is, in effect, overruling 

 the motion of Sir Alexander Cockburn. 



The Tribunal, it would seem, could not perceive 

 the advantage of discussing speculative general ques 

 tions, as in a moot court ; and, more especially, ques 

 tions of law, which had already been discussed abun- 



H 



