112 THE TllEATY OF WASHINGTON. 



able t]i('in to anive at a just and correct couclusioti," 

 — " to call lor the a>>8i-'<fa/ice of the emiueut counsel 

 who ai'e iu attenilaiicc on the Tribunal to assiat them 

 with their reasonint' and learniuir." 



Analyzing the proj)osition, and omitting the intro- 

 ductory and concluding phrases of nioi'e or less iiTcl- 

 evanl and dilVuse appeal to extraneous considera- 

 tions, the essonce of the proposition is to call on 

 Counsel to assist the Tribunal, " so that arguments 

 scattered over a mass of documents may be presented 

 iu a concentrated and ap])reciable form." 



Now, passing over the looseness and inaccuracy of 

 expression in this statement, it plainly is incorrect iu 

 substance. The considerations of law or fact neces- 

 sary for the instruction of the Tribunal are //at "scat- 

 tered over a mass of documents ;" they are " presented 

 in a concentrated . . . form" [we do not say appncia- 

 hie, because that is not a cpiality intelligible as ap- 

 plied to/o/7// 1 in the three arguments of each of the 

 Governments, — that is to say, "Cases," "Counter- 

 Cases," and " Ai-guments." The proposition betrays 

 singular confusion of mind on the part of a nisi j>ri'us 

 lawyer and judge. The subjects or elements of ar- 

 gument are, it is true, "scattered over a mass of doc- 

 uments;" l)ut it is fpilte absurd to ap])ly this phrase 

 to the Arguments themselves, in which the two Gov- 

 ernments had each labored, we may suppose, to ex- 

 hibit their views of the law and the facts in a man- 

 ner to be readily comprehended and appreciated by 

 the Tril»\inal. In the Arguments proper, filed on the 

 15th of June, each Agent had, as the Treaty reciuires, 



