100 THE TREATY OF. WASHINGTON. 
sufficiently indicated the scope of inquiry or debate, 
and defined its limits. Within 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 
great stores of knowledge and of reason accessible to 
us, we could not expect to supply 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 Treaty. 
It avails nothing to say that the course prescribed 
by the Treaty is wnusual: 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 third 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 
