tlement of all the claims" in question; and further engage that "every such claim, whether the same may or may not have been presented to the notice. of, made, preferred, or laid before the Tribunal or Board, shall, from and after the conclusion of the proceedings of the Tribunal or Board, be considered and treated as finally settled, barred, and thenceforth inadmissible."

ARRANGEMENTS OF ARBITRATION.

The appointment of Arbitrators took place in due course, and with the ready good-will of the three neu. tral Governments. The United States appointed Mr. Charles Francis Adams; Great Britain appointed Sir Alexander Cockburn; the King of Italy named Count Frederic Sclopis; the President of the Swiss Confed eration, Mr. Jacob Stampfli; and the Emperor of Brazil, the Baron d'Itajubá.

Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis was appointed Agent of the United States, and Lord Tenterden of Great Britain.

The Tribunal was organized for the reception of the case of each Party, and held its first conference on the 15th of December, 1871.

On the motion of Mr. Adams, seconded by Sir Alexander Cockburn, it was voted that Count Sclopis, as being the Arbitrator named by the first Power mentioned in the Treaty after Great Britain and the United States, should preside over the labors of the Tribunal.

I observe in passing, as will be more distinctly seen

hereafter, that the personal fitness of Count Sclopis also rendered it eminently proper that he should preside; for he was the senior in age of all the Arbitra tors, of exalted social condition, and distinguished as a man of letters, a jurist, and a statesman.

On the proposal of Count Selopis, the Tribunal of Arbitration requested the Arbitrator named by the President of the Swiss Confederation to recommend some suitable person to act as the Secretary of the Tribunal. Mr. Stampfli named for this office Mr. Alexandre Favrot, and he was accordingly appointed Secretary.

The printed Case of the United States, with accom panying documents, was filed by Mr. Bancroft Davis, and the printed Case of Great Britain, with documents, by Lord Tenterden.

The Tribunal made regulation for the filing of the respective Counter-Cases on or before the 15th day of April next ensuing, as required by the Treaty; and for the convening of a special meeting of the Tribu nal, if occasion should require; and then, at a second meeting, on the next day, they adjourned until the 15th of June next ensuing, subject to a prior call by the Secretary, if there should be occasion, as provided for in the proceedings at the first Conference.

The record of these, and of all the subsequent Conferences of the Tribunal, is contained in alternate Protocols, drawn up both in French and in English, veri fied by the signatures of the President and Secretary, and of the agents of the two Governments.

In these opening proceedings, that is, at the very

earliest moment possible, signs became visible of the singular want of discretion and good sense of the "enfant terrible," ostentatiously protocoled "Lord Chief Justice of England," whom the British Govern ment had placed on the Tribunal.

The vernacular tongue of Count Sclopis was Italian; that of the Baron d'Itajubá, Portuguese; and that of Mr. Stampfli, German. Count Sclopis spoke and read English, and Mr. Stampfli read it. All the Arbitrators, however, were well acquainted with French; and it was in this language that they com municated with one another, whether in social inter course or in the discussions of the Tribunal. Thus, we had before us a Tribunal, the members of which did not either of them make use of his own language in their common business; but met, all of them, on the neutral ground of the common diplomatic language of Europe.

In this connection it was that the United States enjoyed their first advantage. Our Government did not need to wait until the organization of the Tribu nal to know in what language its proceedings would be conducted; and, in prevision of this fact, it ordered the American "Case" to be translated from the English into French, so as to be presented simultaneously in both languages at the meeting of the Tribu nal: the exigency for which was not anticipated, or, if anticipated, was not provided for, by the British Government.

The American "Case" and documents are contain ed in eight volumes octavo, which consist in all of

5442 pages, as reduced to a common standard, that of the printing by Congress.

The British "Case" and documents fill, in the reprint by Congress, three volumes octavo, consisting of

2823 pages.

Perusal of the American and British Cases, and of their accompanying documents on both sides, brings us to consideration of the peculiarities in the course of argument and trial prescribed by the Treaty.

In effect, the United States were the plaintiff's, and Great Britain the defendant, in a suit at law, to be tried, it is true, before a special tribunal, and determined by conventional rules, but not the less a suit at law for the recovery of damages in reparation of alleged injuries.

In common course, the plaintiff's counsel would open his case and put in his evidence; the defendant's counsel would then open the defense and put in defensive proofs; and, after the close of the testimony on both sides, the defendant's counsel would argue in close for the defense, and then the plaintiff's counsel in final close for the plaintiff.

Here, on the contrary, the defendant's opening argu ment and defensive proofs went in at the same time as the plaintiff's opening argument and proofs, each under the name of the "Case" of the respective Party.

The British Case, of course, could not answer the American Case, save by conjecture and anticipation founded on common knowledge of the subject-matter.

The respective Counter-Cases of the Parties were to go in together, in like manner, in April, and their

respective Arguments in June: so that the CounterCases would on each side be response to the previous Cases, and the Arguments to the previous CounterCases.

This course of presentation was. in no sort prejudi cial to the United States, as plaintiffs, and was exceed. ingly advantageous to Great Britain, as defendant.

THE AMERICAN CASE.

Nevertheless, when our "Case" went in,—that is to say, the opening argument for the United States,-its true character as such was misapprehended in England, where it seemed to be forgotten that the time and place for replying to it were in the British Coun ter-Case, and not in the newspapers of London or in the British Parliament.

Similar misconception occurred subsequently with regard to the American Argument; the Counsel for Great Britain thinking that he ought to have the op portunity of replying, as will be explained hereafter, and losing sight of the fact that the British Govern ment had already argued the matter three times in "Case," "Counter-Case," and "Argument."

As to the American Case, it seemed to fall into the adversary's camp like a bomb-shell, which rendered every body dumb for a month, and then produced an explosion of clamor, which did not cease for three or four months, and until the final decision of the Tribunal of Arbitration.

The leading journals of England, whether daily or weekly, such as the London Times, Telegraph, and