ALABAMA CLAIMS. 101 
to deliver “a written or printed arguméit showing 
the points 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 pages to be occupied? Do they require 
either of the parties 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 swm- 
mary 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. 
fied 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 misappre- 
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 language of the final “Arguments” 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 amplitude of our law 
and our evidence until they read our “ Argument.” 
And strange, almost incredible, though it be, the 
