ALABAMA CLAJMS. 101 



to (lt'livoi'"a ^vl•ittcll or printed argument .showing 

 tlic points and referring to tlic evidence ii[)on wliieli 

 liis (Jovernnient relies." Do tliese words ini}>ly a 

 •weak or imperfect argument? Do tlicy deli-ne ilie 

 luuuljer of pages to he occupied? Do tliey re([uire 

 eitlicr of tlie parties to leave out liis strong points i 

 Of course not. And if the Treaty said "sununary," 

 • — wliicli it does not, — who shall say what is a fit sn/,/. 

 mari/ of some twenty volumes of evidence and of Icgak- 

 discussions, such as the two "Cases" and "Countrr- 

 Cases" comprehend ? The United States had the 

 I'ight to judge for themselves what exhibition of 

 "points" and what "evidence" to suljmit to the Ar- 

 bitrators. 



The British Government must have been dissiff/.s- 

 fud with its own argument. That is clear, and is the 

 only suflicient explanation of the earnest and per.>i>t- 

 cut cllbrts of Sir lloundell Palmer to obtain permis- 

 sion to reargue the cause. There was no misappre- 

 hension on the part of the British Government as to 

 the more or less fullness of argumentation admissible 

 in the so-called "Argument;" for there is notable 

 similitude in this respect on both sides in the intro- 

 ductory language of the final "Arguments" of the 

 two Governments. We believed at the time, and all 

 the subserpient occurrences tended to prove, that as 

 the British Govermnent had nnderestimated the force 

 of our cause nntil the " Case " came into their hands, 

 so they did not appreciate the amplitude of oui* law 

 and our evidence nntil they read our "Argument." 



And strange, almost incredible, though it bo, the 



