30 TIIi: TUKATV OF WASHINGTON. 



respective ArLCuuieiits in June : so tlmt iLo Counter- 

 Case3 "would on each side be response to tlie previous 

 Cases, and the Arguments to the previous Counter- 

 Cases. 



Tills course of presentation -was. in no sort prejudi- 

 cial to the United States, as plaintlfls, and was exceed- 

 ingly advantageous to Great Britain, as defendant. 



THE AMERICAN CASE. 



Nevertheless, when our " Case " went in, — tliat is to 

 say, the opening argument for the United States, — its 

 true character as such was misapprehended in En- 

 gland, where it seemed to be forgotten that the time 

 and j-jlace for re])lying to it were in the l^ritish Coiui- 

 ter-Casc, and not in the ne\vs])a])ers of London or in 

 the Ih'itish Parliament. 



Similar misconception occurred subsequently with 

 r(\gard to the An^.erican Argument; the Counsel for 

 (Jreat I>i-itain thinking that lie ought to liavc the op- 

 l^ortunlty of replying, as will be e\i)lained hereafter, 

 and losing sight of the fact that the British Govern- 

 ment had already argued th.e matter three times in 

 " Case," " Counter-Case," and " Argument." 



As to the American Case, it seemed to fall into the 

 adversary's camp like a bomb-shell, which rendered 

 every body dundj for a month, and then j^roduccd 

 an ex])losion of clamor, which did not cease for three 

 or four months, and \intll the final decision of the 

 Tribunal of Arbitnition. 



The leading journals of ICngland, wliethcr daily or 

 weekly, such as the London Times, Telegraph, and 



