ALABAMA CLAIMS. 



at Lis command, — in a word, the wliole force o?~the 

 Britisli Government at Lis back, in wLicL to write 

 and 2:)i'int Lis Argument ; wLile it would Lave afforded 

 to tLe American Counsel less than four iveeks for tLe 

 same task, in wLicL to prepare and print our Argu- 

 ment in botli languages, witL no libraries at Land, no 

 translators, no printers, tLrown wLolly on our per- 

 sonal resources away from Lome in tLe Leart of Eu- 

 rope. 



TLe Counsel of tLe United States desired no re- 

 ar^rument of tLe cause. We found notLino- in tLe 

 BritisL Argument wLicL we Lad not anticipated and 

 disposed of to our own satisfaction. Not tLat we 

 feared reargument : on tLe contrary, we felt sucL com- 

 plete confidence in our rigLts as to be sure not to lose, 

 and to Lope ratLer to gain, by furtLer discussion. 

 Hence we did not desire nor seek reargument, al- 

 tLougli perfectly ready for it if called upon in con- 

 formity witL tLe Treaty. Our objections were to tLe 

 delay and to tLe departure from tLe conditions of tLe 

 Treaty. 



According to tLe explicit language of tLe Treaty, 

 " tLe decision of tLe Tribunal sLall, if possible, be 

 made witLin tLree montLs from tLe close of tLe ar- 

 guments on bptL sides;" and tLe prescribed day "for 

 tLe close of tLe arguments on botL sides" is tLe lotL 

 of June. Suppose tLat, by agreement of tLe two Gov- 

 ernments, — it could not be done by Counsel witLout 

 consent of tLeir Governments, — "tLe close of tLe 

 arguments" Lad been postponed to tLe 31st of Au- 

 gust, as proposed by Sir Roundell Palmer. In tLat 



