100 'IHi: TUKATV 01' WASHINGTON. 



Hiillu-irntly iiul'icateil tlio scope of inquiry or dcljiitc, 

 and (U'ilni'd its liniits. AVilliin tliosc limits all i)(;rti- 

 ncnt law, lii.slory, and reason lay at the connnand ot' 

 the Coiinst'l of the United States, as of those of (Jreat 

 Britain. If we, the Connsel of the United States, liad 

 neglected at the pro})er time to avail ourselves of the 

 irreat stores of knowlcdire and of reason accessible to 

 us, we could not expect to Bup])ly the deficiencies of 

 our ".Vrgunicnt" by filing a new one as the means of 

 response to, antl commentary on, the Jiritish "Argu- 

 ment." Sueli ])rocedure was not authorized, — it was 

 ]»lainly forbidden, — by the Treaty. 



It avails nothing to say that the course prescribed 

 by the Treaty is niifisiud: such was the will of the 

 two Governments. Doubtless they had good reasons, 

 and among them, perliaps, was the very i)urposc of 

 not having final *'Ai'g\unents," — that is, the M/r^^ argu- 

 ment in cllcct on both sides, — consist of ft mere debate 

 of reply and rejoinder betwixt Counsel. 



(Ireat Britain had no cause or excuse for misappre- . 

 hension in this respect, although both (lovernment 

 and Counsel had, it is true, ^allcn into the careless 

 way of speaking of the " Summary" to be filed on the 

 15th of June. Nay, the paper filed by Great Britain 

 is expressly entitled "Argument ov Summary^ If 

 at'(jumc)it and sununar]/ are synonymous terms, then 

 it is tautology and bad taste to emidoy them both to 

 designate the same document. If they mean difierent 

 things, then it is misleading to employ the term sum- 

 mary at all ; for suminarj/ is not the language nor the 

 sense of the Treaty. The Treaty requires each Agent 



