102 THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 
British Government would seem to have supposed 
that the United States were to discuss and confute 
the British “Counter-Case” in the American “Counter. 
Case ;” that is, to make reply to an elaborate argu. 
ment on the law and the facts [for such is the British 
“ Counter-Case” | without seeing it or possessing’ any 
knowledge of its contents. Manifestly, no complete 
and systematic final “Argument” on the part of the 
United States was possible without previous thought- 
ful knowledge of the British “Counter-Case.” And 
yet Sir Roundell Palmer, in expressing desire to an- 
swer our “Argument,” reasoned expressly on the im- 
plication that it ought to have been “a mere comple. 
ment of previous documents.” No such idea certainly 
is conveyed by the Treaty; and the implication is 
contrary to reason and the very nature of things. 
Sir Roundell Palmer entered on the question the 
moment it became reasonably certain that the Arbi- 
tration would proceed. On the 29th of June he pro- 
posed to-us, informally, to arrange for reargument of 
the cause, he to have until the end of the first week 
of August to prepare his Argument, and we to the 
end of August to prepare areply. The effect of this 
would be a suspension of the sittings for more than 
ten weeks, and a prolongation to that extent [and 
perhaps much more] of the absence of the American 
Arbitrator, Agent, and Counsel from their country. 
In other respects the proposition involved much in- 
equality; for it would have given to the British 
Counsel nearly six weeks at his own home in London, 
with books, assistants, translators, and printing-oflices - 
