ARGUMENT OF KLIHU ROOT. 2099 



and in this letter a single sentence which referred to an entirely dif- 

 ferent subject, a subject which was not under discussion at all. 



Mr. Fish on the 8th June acknowledged Mr. Thornton's letter, and 

 properly and naturally expressed some views regarding the subject- 

 matter to which the letter related regarding the controversy about 

 which the letter was written, regarding the practical question which 

 was then before the two Governments. Upon that he points out a 

 descrepancy between the terms of the instructions which Mr. Thorn- 

 ton had sent to him, and of certain other instructions which had been 

 given ; the difference being the difference between employing the 

 10-mile and the 6-mile limit, that is. applying the 3-mile or the 5-mile 

 zone limit. That was relevant to the subject they were discussing. 

 That was relevant to the subject that was up before the two Govern- 

 ments. Then he says (United States Case Appendix, p. 610) : 



" Without entering into any consideration of questions which might 

 be suggested by the letter referred to, which I understand to be super- 

 seded by later instructions, I think it best to call your attention to 

 the inconsistencies referred to, in order to guard against misunder- 

 standings and complications. . . ." 



Surely no one ever more effectively guarded himself against being 

 understood to have made admissions and to be bound by irrelevant 

 matter in the exhibits or appendices, annexes which happened to be 

 in the mass of papers that had been sent him because they contained 

 matter which was relevant to a subject under discussion, than Mr. 

 Fish did here. Of course, in the practical conduct of government, 

 as in the ordinary affairs of life, many subjects become mingled in the 

 same paper, many papers have to be communicated, communicated 

 because of their relevancy and materiality upon some subject which 

 is under discussion. It is a matter of every-day experience that 

 papers are sent to be examined with reference to their bearing upon 

 a particular subject which is under discussion, and there may be a 

 hundred matters in them which are not relevant or not im- 

 1270 portant. Is the person who receives them obliged to sit down 

 and construct elaborate arguments upon every subject that is 

 touched upon in those letters, or is he to treat merely what is 

 relevant and material, but as to matters which have nothing to do 

 with the subject under discussion save himself by some general ex- 

 pression of this kind ? It needed no general expression to save him ; 

 but he did include in this letter this clear and distinct statement, 

 " without entering into any consideration of questions which might 

 be suggested by the letter." It is a pretty slender case that has to 

 rest upon such a reed as that. 



Another circumstance to which reference is made is what we have 

 got in the habit of calling the Boutwell circular. The Boutwell cir- 

 cular was a circular sent by the Secretary of the Treasury in pur- 



