ALABAMA CLAIMS. 113 
delivered “to each of the said Arbitrators and to the 
Agent of the other party a written or printed argu- 
ment showing the points and referring to the evi- 
dence on which his Government relies.” These “ Ar- 
guments” were freshly in the possession of the Arbi- 
trators. To call on Counsel, for the reason assigned, 
to reargue the matters therein argued, was just as 
unreasonable as it would be for a judge presiding at 
a hearing jn common law, equity, or admiralty, to 
call on the counsel, who have just finished their ar- 
guments, to do, something for the “assistance” of the 
Court,—it would be difficult to ‘see what,—to the end 
“that arguments scattered over a mass of documents 
may be presented in a concentrated and appreciable 
form.” And if in this case such arguments had been 
filed in print, it would be natural for counsel to say 
that they had just done the thing required of then, 
as the Court would perceive if it would please to 
read those arguments: which, in the present case, it 
would seem, Sir Alexander had neglected to do; and, 
instead of doing it, he had got bewildered by plung- 
ing unpreparedly into the “ mass of documents” filed 
by the two Governments. 
After discussion, the Tribunal decided to proceed 
with the case of the /orida, according to the pro- 
gramme of Mr. Stzmpfli, that is, in effect, overruling 
the motion of Sir Alexander Cockburn. 
The Tribunal, it would seem, could not perceive 
the advantage of discussing speculative general ques- 
tions, as in a moot court; and, more especially, ques- 
tions of law, which had already been discussed abun- 
H 
