380 THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 
respective Arguments in June: so that the Counter- 
Cases would on each side be response to the prévious 
Cases, and the Arguments to the previous Counter- 
Cases. 
This course of presentation was in no sort prejudi- 
cial to the United States, as plaintiffs, and was exceed- 
ingly advantageous to Great Britain, as defendant. 
THE AMERICAN CASE. 
Nevertheless, when our “Case” went in,—that is to 
say, the opening argument for the United States,—its 
true character as such was misapprehended in En- 
gland, where it seemed to be forgotten that the time 
and place for replying to it were in the British Coun- 
ter-Case, and not in the newspapers of London or in 
the British Parliament. 
Similar misconception occurred subsequently with 
regard to the American Argument; the Counsel for 
Great Britain thinking that he ought to have the op- 
portunity of replying, as will be explained hereafter, 
and losing sight of the fact that the British Govern- 
ment had already argued the matter three times in 
“ Case,” “ Counter-Case,” and “ Argument.” 
As to the American Case, it seemed to fall into the 
adversary’s camp like a bomb-shell, which rendered 
every body dumb for a month, and then produced 
an explosion of clamor, which did not cease for three 
or four months, and until the final decision of the 
Tribunal of Arbitration. 
The leading journals of England, whether daily or 
weekly, such as the London Times, Telegraph, and 
