and with confident expectation only as to the Shenandoah after she left Melbourne. Without pausing here to consider particularly the Retribution and the Georgia, suffice it to say that eventually they were rejected; but the Shenandoah, after special explana tions in writing submitted by the Counsel of the two Governments, was held responsible by vote of three of the Arbitrators, Count Sclopis, Mr. Stampfli, and Mr. Adams. As the Shenandoah, after increasing her armament at Melbourne, had made many captures at the very close of the war, when her cruise could not be of any possible advantage to the Confederates, her exoneration by the Tribunal would have been justly regarded by us as an act of great injustice to the United States.

THE SPECIAL ARGUMENTS.

It remains next to speak of the successive Argu ments of Counsel before the Tribunal, as well those heretofore indicated as others called for in the sequel.

On the 25th of July, as we have seen, the Tribunal voted to require from the Counsel of Great Britain a written or printed Argument touching cer tain points.

On the 29th, Lord Tenterden announced that he had delivered the required Argument of the British Counsel to the Secretary of the Tribunal.

The copy thus delivered was in manuscript. As subsequently printed, it consists of 43 folio pages.

The replies of the American Counsel, each of them addressing the Tribunal separately, were presented

on the 5th, 6th, and 8th of August, consisting altogether of 47 pages of the same folio impression.

It would not be convenient, and it does not come within my plan, to discuss the Arguments of Counsel on either side, except where some particular point of such Argument calls for notice. Hence, as in the case of the general Arguments of April and of June, so as to the special Arguments called for by the Tribunal, it will be sufficient to enumerate them, and to give to them their proper piace in the history of the Arbitration.

The first Argument of Sir Roundell Palmer, however, calls for some observations.

Of his 43 pages, 31,-say three quarters,—are devoted nominally to the question of due diligence generally considered.

Now, in the previous regular Arguments, each Gov. ernment had fully discussed this question, and had, as if by common consent, concluded in express terms that it neither required nor admitted any further dis cussion. That conclusion was correct. Accordingly, most of these 31 pages are occupied with matters remotely, if at all, connected with the question, What constitutes due diligence?—such as [copying, word for word, sundry marginal notes] rules and principles of international law; express or implied engagements of Great Britain; effect of prohibitory municipal laws; the three Rules of the Treaty; the maxims cited by the United States from Sir Robert Phillimore op the question, Civitas ne deliquerit an cives; for what pur pose Great Britain refers to her municipal laws; doc.

trine of Tetens as to municipal laws in excess of antecedent international obligations; the arguments as to the prerogative powers belonging to the British Crown; the true doctrine as to the powers of the Crown under British law; the British Crown has. power by common law to use the civil, military, and naval forces of the Realm to stop acts of war within British territory; the preventive powers of British law explained; examination of the preventive pow ers of the American Government under the Acts of Congress for the preservation of neutrality:-and so of diverse other questions discussed by Sir Roundell Palmer under the head of due diligence generally considered. Very generally, it is clear. Nay, 13 of the 31 pages devoted to the question of "due dil igence generally considered" are occupied with examination of the laws and political history of the United States, in continuance and iteration of the groundless and irrelevant accusations of the Ameri can Government introduced into the British Case and Counter-Case.

Now Sir Roundell Palmer is, omnium consensu, at the head of the British Bar in learning, intelligence, and integrity; and we may be sure that arguments addressed by him to the Tribunal would be the best that such a lawyer, so high in mental and moral qual ities, or that any living lawyer, be he who he may, could devise or conceive. The British Arbitrator had gone "clean daft" in the hope deferred of hearing him. He himself had been earnestly seeking to be heard by the Tribunal for more than a month; he had com

templated being heard for many months. And the result of all this meditation, and of all this carnest desire to serve his country, was a series of arguments mostly immaterial to the issue, as the final judgment of the Tribunal plainly shows, and coming in after the main question had been actually settled in the cases of the Alabama and the Florida. That is to say,and it is in this relation the point is introduced,— the claims of the United States rested on a basis which all the great forensic skill and ability of Sir Roundell Palmer could not move,-which commend ed itself to the confidence of the neutral Arbitrators, -and which even extorted the reluctant adhesion of the prejudiced British Arbitrator.

Subsequently, on requirement of the Arbitrators, we discussed, in successive printed Arguments, the special question of the legal effect of the entry of the Florida into Mobile; the question of the recruitment of men for the Shenandoah at Melbourne; and the question of interest as an element of the indemni ty due to the United States.

QUESTION OF DAMAGES.

Meanwhile, the Tribunal had voted definitively on the question of the liability or non-liability of Great Britain for the acts of the cruisers named in the "Case" of the United States, in the terms which will appear in explaining their final judgment. They had also voted on several of the incidental questions, such as the abstract question of due diligence, entry into Confederate ports, commission, and supply of coal,

raised by successive requirements of the Tribunal. They had thus arrived at the point of discussing matters, which only affected the form and the amount of the judgment to be rendered against Great Britain.

And here, on the 26th of August, the Tribural voted to deliberate with closed doors, in spite of the objection of Sir Alexander Cockburn.

Thenceforth, and until the final Conference of the 14th of September, the Tribunal sat with closed doors, that is, without the assistance of the Agents and Counsel.

Down to this time, the Agent, Counsel, Solicitor, and Secretaries of the United States had been assid. uously occupied in preparing, copying, translating, and printing Arguments and other documents for the use of the Tribunal. And even when the regular dis cussions were ended, we had still to attend to the laborious task of preparing schedules of the claims of the United States in response to argumentative estimates filed by the British Government.

FINAL JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL.

On the 9th of September the Arbitrators definitively adopted the Act of Decision, which had been considered at the preceding Conference, and ordered it to be printed. They also resolved that the Decis ion should be signed at the next Gonference, to be held with open doors, and they then adjourned to the 14th.