ALABAMA CLAIMS. Id 



to deliver " a written or printed argument showing 

 the j)oints and referring to the evidence upon which 

 his Government relies." Do these words imply a 

 weak or imperfect argument? Do they define the 

 number of 2:)ages to be occuj)ied ? Do they require 

 either of the j^arties to leave out his strong points ? 

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

 — which it does not, — who shall say what is a fit sum- 

 7nary of some twenty volumes of evidence and of legal 

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

 Cases" comprehend? The United States had the 

 right to judge for themselves what exhibition of 

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

 bitrators. 



The British Government must have been dissatis- 

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

 only sufficient explanation of the earnest and persist- 

 ent efforts of Sir Roundell Palmer to obtain permis- 

 sion to reargue the cause. There was no misapi^re- 

 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 lano-uao-e of the final "Aro;iiments"»of the 

 two Governments. We believed at the time, and all 

 the subsequent occurrences tended to prove, that as 

 the British Government had underestimated the force 

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

 so they did not appreciate the amj^litude of our law 

 and our evidence until they read our "Argument." 



And strange, almost incredible, though it be, the 



