« PreviousContinue »
pated from all social bonds? It is not so with Chief Justices in Americạ; nor was it so in former days in Great Britain, according to my recollection of the great judges, the Eldous, 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 deliv. ered 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 judicial 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
sufficiently indicated the scope of inquiry or debate, and defined its limits. Within those limits all pertinent law, history, and reason lay at the command of the Counsel of the United States, as of those of Great Britain. If we, the Counsel of the United States, had neglected at the proper time to avail ourselves of the great stores of knowledge and of reason accessible to us, we could not expect to supply the deficiencies of our “Argument” by filing a new one as the means of response to, and commentary on, the British “ Argument.” Such procedure was not authorized, -it was plainly forbidden,-by the Treaty.
It avails nothing to say that the course prescribed by the Treaty is unusual : such was the will of the two Governments. Doubtless they had good reasons, and among them, perhaps, was the very purpose of not having final"Arguments,"—that is, the third argument in effect on both sides,-consist of a mere debate of reply and rejoinder betwixt Counsel.
Great Britain had no cause or excuse for misapprehension in this respect, although both Government and Counsel had, it is true, fallen into the careless way of speaking of the “Summary" to be filed on the 15th of June. Nay, the paper filed by Great Britain is expressly entitled “Argument or Summary.” If argument and summary are synonymous terms, then it is tautology and bad taste to employ them both to designate the same document. If they mean different things, then it is misleading to employ the term summary at all; for summary is not the language nor the sense of the Treaty. The Treaty requires each Agent
to-deliver " a written or printed argument showing the points and referring to the evidence upon which his Government relies.” Do these words imply a weak or imperfect argument? Do they define the number of pages to be occupied ?' Do they require either of the parties to leave out his strong points ? Of course not. And if the Treaty said “summary," —which it does not,—who shall say what is a fit summary of some twenty volumes of evidence and of legal discussions, such as the two “Cases” and “ CounterCases” comprehend? The United States had the right to judge for themselves what exhibition of “points” and what “evidence" to submit to the Arbitrators.
The British Government must have been dissatisfied with its own argument. That is clear, and is the only sufficient explanation of the earnest and persistent efforts of Sir Roundell Palmer to obtain permission to reargue the cause. There was no misapprehension on the part of the British Government as to the more or less fullness of argumentation admissible in the so-called “Argument;" for there is notable similitude in this respect on both sides in the introductory language of the final “Arguments” of the two Governments. We believed at the time, and all the subsequent occurrences tended to prove, that as the British Government had underestimated the force of our cause until the “Case" came into their hands, so they did not appreciate the amplitude of our law and our evidence until they read our “Argument.”
And strange, almost incredible, though it be, the
British Government would seem to have supposed that the United States were to discuss and confute the British Counter-Case" in the American CounterCase;" that is, to make reply to an elaborate argument on the law and the facts (for such is the British “ Counter-Case” ] without seeing it or possessing any knowledge of its contents. Manifestly, no complete and systematic final “ Argument” on the part of the United States was possible without previous thought. ful knowledge of the British “ Counter-Case.” And yet Sir Roundell Palmer, in expressing desire to answer our “Argument,” reasoned expressly on the implication that it ought to have been “a mere complement of previous documents." No such idea certainly is conveyed by the Treaty; and the implication is contrary to reason and the very nature of things.
Sir Roundell Palmer entered on the question the moment it became reasonably certain that the Arbi. tration would proceed. On the 29th of June he proposed to us, informally, to arrange for reargument of the cause, he to have until the end of the first week of August to prepare his Argument, and we to the end of August to prepare a reply. The effect of this would be a suspension of the sittings for more than ten weeks, and a prolongation to that extent [and perhaps much more] of the absence of the American Arbitrator, Agent, and Counsel from their country. In other respects the proposition involved much inequality; for it would have given to the British Counsel nearly six weeks at his own home in London, with books, assistants, translators, and printing-offices
at his command, -in a word, the whole force of the British Government at his back, in which to write and print his Argument; while it would have afforded to the American Counsel less than four weeks for the same task, in which to prepare and print our Argument in both languages, with no libraries at hand, no translators, no printers, thrown wholly on our personal resources away from home in the heart of Europe. .
The Counsel of the United States desired no l'eargument of the cause. We found nothing in the
ish Argument which we had not anticipated and disposed of to our own satisfaction. Not that we feared reargument: on the contrary, we felt such complete confidence in our rights as to be sure not to lose, and to hope rather to gain, by further discussion. Hence we did not desire nor seek reargument, although perfectly ready for it if called upon in conformity with the Treaty. Our objections were to the delay and to the departure from the conditions of the Treaty.
According to the explicit language of the Treaty, " the decision of the Tribunal shall, if possible, be made within three months from the close of the ar. guments on both sides;" and the prescribed day" for the close of the arguments on both sides” is the 15th of June. Suppose that, by agreement of the two Gov. ernments,—it could not be done by Counsel without consent of their Governments,—“the close of the arguments" had been postponed to the 31st of August, as proposed by Sir Roundell Palmer. In that