112 THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 
able them to arrive at a just and correct conclusion,” 
—“to call for the assistance of the eminent counsel 
who are in attendance on the Tribunal to assist them 
with their reasoning and learning.” 
Analyzing the proposition, and omitting the intro. 
ductory and concluding phrases of more or less irrel- 
evant and diffuse appeal to extraneous considera. 
tions, the essence of the proposition is to call on 
Counsel to assist the Tribunal, “so that arguments 
scattered over a mass of documents may be presented 
in a concentrated and appreciable form.” 
Now, passing over the looseness and inaccuracy of 
expression in this statement, it plainly is incorrect in 
substance. The considerations of law or fact neces- 
sary for the instruction of the Tribunal are not “ scat- 
tered over a mass of documents ;” they ave “ presented 
in a concentrated ... form” [we do not say apprecia- 
ble, because that is not a quality intelligible as ap- 
plied to form] in the three arguments of each of the 
Governments,—that is to say, “Cases,” “Counter- 
Cases,” and “ Arguments.” The proposition betrays 
singular confusion of mind on the part of a nisi prius 
lawyer and judge. The subjects or elements of ar- 
gument are, it is true, “scattered over a mass of doc 
uments ;” but it is quite absurd to apply this phrase 
to the Arguments themselves, in which the two Govy- 
ernments had each labored, we may suppose, to ex- 
hibit their views of the law and the facts in a man- 
ner to be readily comprehended and appréciated by 
the Tribunal. In the Arguments proper, filed on the 
15th of June, each Agent ] had, as the Treaty requires, 
