100 THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 



sufficiently indicated the scope of inquiry or debate, 

 and defined its limits. WitLin those limits all perti- 

 nent law, history, and reason lay at the command* of 

 the Counsel of the United States, as of those of Great 

 Britain. If we, the Counsel of the United States, had 

 neglected at the proper time to avail ourselves of the 

 c:reat stores of knowledo-e and of reason accessible to 

 us, we could not expect to suj^ply the deficiencies of 

 our "Argument" by filing a new one as the means of 

 response to, and commentary on, the British "Argu- 

 ment." Such procedure was not authorized, — it was 

 plainly forbidden, — by the Ti^eaty. 



It avails nothing to say that the course prescribed 

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

 two Governments. Doubtless they had good reasons, 

 and among them, perhaps, was the very purpose of 

 not having final "Arguments," — that is, the thinl argu- 

 ment in effect on both sides, — consist of a mere debate 

 of reply and rejoinder betwixt Counsel. 



Great Britain had no cause or excuse for misappre- 

 hension in this respect, although both Government 

 and Counsel had, it is true, fallen 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 or Summary.'''' If 

 argument and summary are synonymous terms, then 

 it is tautology and bad taste to employ them both to 

 designate the same document. If they mean different 

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

 mary at all ; for summary is not the language nor the 

 sense of the Treaty. The Treaty requires each Agent 



