for the places they filled, both of them having served in similar capacities in the foreign Department of their respective Governments, and both having assisted in the negotiation of the Treaty of Washington. Their friendly personal relations were advantageous in facilitating the movement of business before the Arbitration.

Mr. Bancroft Davis deserves particular mention. Englishmen may criticise the American "Case," the labor of preparing which devolved chiefly on him; but its indisputable merit should draw to him the applause of every American. His literary accomplishments, his previous diplomatic experience, his knowledge of men and things in Europe, and his devoted and untiring attention to the public interests, were singularly useful to the United States.

Of the persons or qualities of the Counsel of the United States, Mr. Morrison R. Waite, Mr. William M. Evarts, and the writer of this exposition, it would be unbecoming, as it is quite superfluous, here to speak.

In this relation, however, it is proper to call attention to two facts or incidents of national interest or concernment.

In the first place, to the honor of the President of the United States be it said, in the selection of Coun sel by him, as for instance in the invitation to Mr. B. R. Curtis, considerations of party were not allowed to exert controlling authority.

Secondly, the Counsel themselves emulated the catholic spirit of the President in subordinating all

personal considerations to the single object of winning a great cause, the greatest ever committed to the charge of members of the Bar, and pending in the highest court ever organized, namely, the suit of the United States against Great Britain before the Tribunal of Arbitration. Although diverse in their habits of mind, and in their lines of experience and action, they acted as a unit in the determination of advice to be given from time to time to the Government or its Agent; in the preparation of the printed Argument required by the Treaty, a document of five hundred pages, to be signed by them jointly; and in the subsequent preparation of a number of joint or separate Arguments in compliance with the requirements of the Arbitrators. We may appeal to those Arguments as the tangible proof, at any rate, of our concurrent and united dedication, during nine months of continuous and solicitous thought or labor, to the discharge of our duty to our Government and our country, as Counsel under the Treaty of Washington.

Sir Roundell Palmer alone appeared before the Tribunal as eo nomine Counsel of Great Britain; but Mr. Mountague Bernard, elevated to the office of a law-member of the Queen's Council, sat by his side at the Counsels' table, and also Mr. Cohen. The hand of the latter was apparent in the estimates and exhibits presented to the Tribunal to guide them in the determination of the damages to be awarded to the United States.

The recent promotion of Sir Roundell Palmer to the pre-eminent post of Lord Chancellor, by the title

of Lord Selborne, is the appropriate consummation of a professional and parliamentary career of distin guished ability and of unstained honor. In conducting the deliberations of the House of Lords; in presiding over the High Court of Chancery; in participating in the affairs of the Cabinet; in guiding the conscience of the Queen through the embarrassments which now beset the English Church, we may be sure that Lord Selborne will join to the high authority of a skillful debater and a learned jurist the still higher authority of a sincerely conscientious statesman, so as to add incontestable force to Mr. Gladstone's Ministry. And all that authority, we may confidently assume, will be used in the promotion or maintenance of amicable relations between Great Britain and the United States.

This account of the personnel of the Arbitration would be imperfect without mention of the younger but estimable persons who constituted the staff of the formal representatives of the two Governments, namely: on the part of the United States, Mr. C. C. Beaman, as solicitor, and Messrs. Brooks Adams, John Davis, F. W. Hackett, W. F. Pedrick, and Edward T. Waite, as secretaries; and on the part of Great Britain, in the latter capacity or as translators, Messrs. Sanderson, Markheim, Villiers, Langley, and Hamilton. If the labors of these gentlemen were less conspicuous than those of the Agents and Counsel, they were scarcely less indispensable; and they all deserve a place in the history of the Arbitration.

A single observation will close up these personal G

sketches, and bring us to the consideration of the ul terior proceedings of the Tribunal.

Occasionally, but not frequently, at the present day, we hear in the United States ungracious suggestions touching the personal deportment of Englishmen. No such observations, it is certain, are justified by any experience of the city of Washington. The eminent persons, who, in the present generation, have represented the British Government here, whether in permanent or special missions, such as Sir Richard Packenham, Lord Napier, Lord Lyons, Sir Frederick Bruce, and Sir Edward Thornton, of the former class, and Lord Ashburton, the Earl of Elgin, Earl De Grey, Sir Stafford Northcote, Mr. Mountague Bernard, Sir John A. Macdonald, and Lord Tenterden, of the latter class, with the younger persons of their respective suites, and so many others who have visited this city, were unmistakably and with good cause popular with the Americans. Indeed, it is rather in Continental Europe, and especially in France, and by no means in the United States, that overbearingness or uncourteous deportment toward others is regarded as a trait of Englishmen.

And it is agreeable to remember that, of the ten Englishmen with whom we of the United States came in daily contact at Geneva, and sometimes in circumstances of contentious attitude of a nature to produce coolness at least, all but one were uniformly and unexceptionably courteous in act and manner,-and that one Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench.

Is a holder of the office of Chief Justice emanci

pated from all social bonds? It is not so with Chief Justices in America; nor was it so in former days in Great Britain, according to my recollection of the great judges, the Eldons, the Tenterdens, and the Stowells, who then presided over the administration of the common law, and of the equity and admiralty jurisprudence of England. Has the human race there degenerated? I think not: no possible judicial tenure of office could transform or deform a Roundell Palmer into an Alexander Cockburn.

EFFORTS OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT TO OBTAIN

REARGUMENT.

The Tribunal and the persons attending it are now before us, and we resume its proceedings at the point where we left them, namely, the session of the 27th of June, at the close of the address of Count Sclopis.

The "Argument," filed in behalf of the United States on the 15th of June, was prepared and delivered in strict conformity with the stipulations of the Treaty. It was, in effect, the closing argument on the whole case, consisting of an abridged view of the facts on both sides as presented in their "Cases" and "Counter-Cases," with appropriate discussion of the questions of law which the claims of the United States involved. We followed the ordinary routine of judi cial controversy, and the course of common-sense and of necessity, in giving a complete résumé of our Case in the final "Argument," as contemplated and prescribed by the Treaty.

The "Case" and "Counter-Case" of each side had