The completeness and exactness of this programme. are self-evident; and by these qualities it really im posed itself on the Tribunal, in spite of all objection, and of occasional temporary departures into other lines of thought. There will be occasion hereafter to remark on the precision and concision of the opinions of Mr. Stampfli.

SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN'S CALL FOR REARGUMENT.

Sir Alexander Cockburn then renewed his proposition for a preliminary argument by Counsel, setting forth analytically the various objects of inquiry involved in the claims of the United States, and concluding as follows:

"That, looking to the difficulty of these questions, and the conflict of opinion which has arisen among distinguished jurists on the present contest, as well as to their vast importance in the decision of the Tribunal on the matters in dispute, it is the duty, as it must be presumed to be the wish, of the Arbitrators, in the interests of justice, to obtain all the assistance in their power to enable them to arrive at a just and correct conclusion. That they ought, therefore, to call for the assistance of the eminent counsel who are in attendance on the Tribunal to assist them with their reasoning and learning, so that arguments scattered over a mass of documents may be presented in a concentrated and appreciable form, and the Tribunal may thus have the advantage of all the light which can be thrown on so intricate and difficult a matter, and that its proceedings may hereafter appear to the world to have been characterized by the patience, the deliberation, and anxious desire for information on all the points involved in its decision, without which it is impossible that justice can be duly or satisfac torily done."

"To obtain all the assistance in their power to en

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 introductory and concluding phrases of more or less irrelevant and diffuse appeal to extraneous considerations, 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 necessary for the instruction of the Tribunal are not "scattered over a mass of documents;" they are " 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," "CounterCases," and "Arguments." The proposition betrays singular confusion of mind on the part of a nisi prius lawyer and judge. The subjects or clements 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 Gov. ernments had each labored, we may suppose, to ex hibit their views of the law and the facts in a manner to be readily comprehended and appreciated by the Tribunal. In the Arguments proper, filed on the 15th of June, each Agent had, as the Treaty requires,

delivered "to each of the said Arbitrators and to the Agent of the other party a written or printed argument showing the points and referring to the evidence on which his Government relies." These "Arguments" were freshly in the possession of the Arbitrators. 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 in 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 them, 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 Florida, according to the programme of Mr. Stampfli, 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 questions, as in a moot court; and, more especially, questions of law, which had already been discussed abun

H

1

dantly in the appropriate place and time, that is, in the successive Cases and Arguments of the two Gov.

eruments.

CASE OF THE "FLORIDA" DECIDED.

The Arbitrators then met on the 17th, and proceeded to take up the case of the Florida.

On motion of Sir Alexander Cockburn, it was or dered by the Tribunal that the provisional opinions or statements to be read by the Arbitrators should be printed, and distributed to the Arbitrators and to the Agents and Counsel of the two Governments.

Mr. Stampfli's opinion or statement had been read already, and was in print.

After some incidental discussion among the Arbitrators, Sir A. Cockburn began the reading of his opinion on the case of the Florida.

The Tribunal met again on the 19th, and Sir Alex. ander Cockburn proceeded to read another portion of his opinion in the case of the Florida.

Then, after some debate, caused by irregularities of

speech or conduct on the part of Sir Alexander, Mr. Adams proceeded to read the commencement of his opinion in the matter of the Florida.

On the 221, the case of the Florida was concluded. Sir Alexander Cockburn and Mr. Adams completed the reading of their opinions, and the Baron d'Itajubá and Count Sclopis both read theirs. The result was to convict Great Britain of culpable want of due diligence in the matter of the Florida by the concurrent provisional opinions of four of the Arbitra

tors, with a dissenting opinion from the British Arbitrator.

The Florida, it will be remembered, was a steam gun-boat, built at Liverpool by Miller & Sons, on contract with the Confederate agent Bullock, for the warlike use of the Confederates. Miller & Sons falsely pretended that she was being built for the Italian Government by arrangement with Messrs. Thomas & Brothers of Liverpool and Palermo, one of whom expressly and fraudulently confirmed the false representation of Miller & Sons. The British Gov. erument, although repeatedly warned of the illegal character of this vessel by the diplomatic and con sular authorities of the United States, shut its eyes. to the transparent falsehood and fraud of Miller & Sons and of Thomas, and took no proper and suffi cient measures to investigate her character and to prevent the violation of the laws of the kingdom. She sailed from Liverpool without obstruction, cleared by the name of Oreto, unarmed, it is true, but ac companied by another vessel containing her armament, called the Bahama.

The Oreto next makes her appearance at Nassau, where she proceeded further to equip and arm as a man-of-war. The naval authorities at Nassau were unanimous in denouncing her illegal character, but the civil authorities, perverted by their sympathies, could with difficulty be persuaded to act against her. When they did act, she was acquitted by the local Admiralty Court, in the teeth of the facts and the law, either corruptly, or with inexplicable ignorance