covered in effect all the points of the American "Case" and "Argument,"--that is to say, it implied a complete reargument of the whole cause. It amounted to assuming or admitting that no sufficient or proper defense had yet been made by the British Govern

ment.

We, in behalf of the United States, proceeded to prepare a reply to this motion. We took it up point by point, and showed by citation of pages that every one of the proposed points had been largely and amply discussed already by Great Britain in her "Case," "Counter-Case," and "Argument;" that nothing new could be said on these points; and that, in fact, the very object proposed was to reiterate arguments already adduced, but to do it in the inad missible form of mere criticism of the American Argument. And we cited the Treaty to show that the discussion proposed was contrary to the explicit contract of the two Governments.

Meanwhile the Tribunal proceeded to decide, on suggestion of Mr. Adams, that the proposed argument was inadmissible, and that Counsel had no right to address the Tribunal unless required by it so to do for the elucidation of any point under the 5th article of the Treaty.

At the next meeting of the Tribunal, on the 28th, Sir Alexander Cockburn presented a list of eight points covering in effect the points of the rejected motion of Sir Roundell Palmer, and moved that the Tribunal require of the Counsel of the two Governments written or printed arguments on the said points;

but the Tribunal decided not at present to require such arguments.

Whether the motion of Sir Alexander Cockburn was prompted by Sir Roundell Palmer, in order to afford to the latter the desired opportunity to criticise the American "Argument,"- -or whether it was a spontaneous one arising from the former's not hav ing studied the case, and his consequent ignorance of the fact that most of the questions proposed had already been amply and sufficiently discussed by both Governments, does not distinctly appear. Probably both motives co-operated to induce the motion. Subsequent incidents throw some light on this point. Meanwhile it was plain to infer from the observations of the other Arbitrators, and from their decision, that they were better informed on the subject than Sir Alexander Cockburn.

RULES CONCERNING THE CONFERENCES OF THE TRIBUNAL.

The Tribunal next decided that the Agents should attend all the discussions and deliberations of the Conferences, accompanied by the Counsel, except in case where the Tribunal should think it advisable to conduct their discussions and deliberations with closed doors. The practical effect of this resolution, when connected with a resolution adopted at a subsequent meeting in regard to the course of proceeding, was to enable and require the Agents and Counsel to assist at the judicial consultations of the Tribunal: it being understood, of course, that none others should be present save the representatives of the two Governments.

The Tribunal then authorized publicity to be given to its declaration and to the declarations of the two Governments, relative to the national claims of the United States: after which it adjourned to the 15th of July.

Heretofore, either by intimation to the Secretary, and to the Agents and Counsel, or by formal resolution, the Tribunal had signified its desire that the proceedings should not be committed to publicity, unless by the will of the respective Governments. Of course, reporters for the Press, and other persons not officially connected with the Arbitration, were excluded from the sittings of the Tribunal. This reserve or secrecy of proceeding was inconvenient to the many respectable representatives of the Press of London and New York, persons of consideration, who had come to Geneva for the purpose of satisfying the public curiosity of the United States and of England regarding the acts of the Tribunal; but was dictated, it would seem, rather by considerations of delicacy toward the two Governments, than by any reluctance on the part of the Arbitrators to have their action made known day by day to the world. It was a tribunal of peculiar constitution and character; its members were responsible in some sense each to his own Government, and also to the opinion, at least, of the litigant Governments; its proceedings were not purely judicial, but in a certain degree diplomatic; and a large part of the proceedings were in the nature not so much of action as of judicial consultation, which it might well seem unfit to communicate to the

general public as they occurred, although perfectly fit to be thus communicated to the respective Govern

ments.

The Tribunal reassembled on the 15th of July. Down to this time all the proceedings of the Arbitrators were in their nature public acts, or they have been made public through the respective Governments. All such acts were recorded in the protocols.

Hereafter, we shall have, in addition to the acts of the Tribunal recorded in protocols, a series of provisional opinions, which were also printed and distributed [or should have been] according to express order of the Tribunal. These opinions of the Arbi trators, as well as their official acts, have already been made public by both Governments.

But, incidentally to such acts and opinions, there was much oral debate from time to time at the suc cessive Conferences of the Tribunal. At these debates, the Agents and Counsel of both Governments were required to assist, by resolution of the Tribunal. Assisting, we necessarily heard what was said by the respective Arbitrators. We were expected to hear, it is presumable, and also to understand: otherwise, why required to attend?

Are these debates, which occurred in the presence of so many persons, Agents, Counsel, and others, to be regarded as confidential and unfit to be disclosed now? Forget them, we can not, even if copious notes of the most important debates did not exist to aid and correct mere memory. Is it, then, improper to speak of them? I think not. I conceive that any of us, who

possess knowledge of those debates, have perfect right to refer to them on all fit occasions.

I propose, however, on the present occasion, to exercise this right sparingly, and that only in two relations, namely, first, very briefly, where such reference involves mere formality, and is almost inseparable from acts recorded in the protocols; and, secondly, with a little more fullness at the close, and with some retrospection, for the purpose of explaining the final act of the British Arbitrator.

DISCUSSIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL.

At the meeting of the 15th, discussion arose immediately as to the method and order of proceeding to be adopted in the consideration of the subjects referred to the Tribunal.

Mr. Stampfli then suggested that in his opinion the proper course was to take up the case of some vessel, as expressly required by the Treaty, and consider whether on that vessel Great Britain was responsible to the United States. He had directed his own inquiries in this way, and in this way had arrived at satisfactory conclusions. His plan had been to select a vessel,―to abstract the facts proved regarding her, -and then to apply to the facts the special rules of the Treaty.

Debate on this proposition ensued between Sir Alexander Cockburn, on the one hand, and the rest of the Arbitrators on the other hand; the former desiring to have preliminary consideration of "principles," that is, of abstract questions of law, and the lat