ARGUMENT.

I.

INTRODUCTION.

By the Fifth Article of the Treaty of Washington, it is provided that, "It shall be the duty of the Agent of each Party, within two months after the expiration of the time limited for the delivery of the Counter Case on both sides, to deliver in duplicate to each of the said Arbitrators and to the Agent of the other Party a written or printed argument, showing the points and referring to the evidence upon which his Government relies."

The undersigned have had the honor to receive the instructions of the Government of the United States to prepare, and place in the hands of the agent of that Government, the Argument on its part, contemplated by this article of the Treaty, in order to its submission to the Tribunal of Arbitration, as in said article is provided.

In execution of this duty, thus entrusted to them by their Government, they respectfully present the following

Argument, on behalf of the United States, conformed to the requirements, in this respect, of the provisions of the Treaty under which it is submitted.

Before entering upon the Argument, in the due order of its presentation and development, we may be permitted, with some advantage to the correct understanding of the precise service which we hope to be able to render to the Arbitrators, in the discharge of the arduous and responsible duty which they have undertaken, to point out the character and extent of the discussions, on the part of the two contending Nations, which have already been laid before the Tribunal.

In the "Case" of the Government of the United States, and in that of Her Britannic Majesty's Government, delivered to the Tribunal on the fifteenth day of December last, are carefully set forth, in considerable fulness of detail, the principal matters of historical fact, of legal proposition, and of supporting evidence and authorities, which make up the body of the controversy submitted to the judgment of the Tribunal by the High Contracting Parties to the Treaty of Washington. In the seven volumes of proofs which accompany the "Case" of the United States, and in the four volumes which hold a like relation to the "Case" of Great Britain, are collected, with much else that is pertinent and important, the documents of the diplomatic treatment of the specific controversy, from the commencement of the American Rebellion to the conclusion of the Treaty, exhibiting, in the most authentic form, the real nature of the differences between the two Nations, as they showed themselves in the immediate presence of the events which gave rise to them.

In the "Counter-Cases" of the two Governments, delivered to the Tribunal on the fifteenth of April last, the

deliberate criticisms of the adverse Parties upon the respective original "Cases" have already advised the Arbitrators wherein there is a substantial concurrence between them in their estimates of the facts and the law of the matter in judgment, and wherein opposite or qualifying opinions are insisted upon, or are reserved for fuller treatment in the "Argument" provided for in the Fifth Article of the Treaty. The volumes of proofs which have been presented with the "Counter-Cases" seem designed either to supply what was thought wanting in the original exhibition of proofs, or to meet the contentions raised by the respective adverse original "Cases" of the two Governments.

It may be assumed, then, that these volumes of proofs, and the "Cases" and "Counter-Cases" of the two Governments, not only present all the materials necessary or useful for the complete intelligence and just determination of this great controversy by the Tribunal, but have, in a great measure, reduced the disputation between the Parties and the responsible deliberations of the Arbitrators within some definite and established limits.

To ascertain these limits and verify them to the approval of the Tribunal, and to confine the subsequent discussion rigidly within them, we venture to think should be a leading purpose of this Argument. If that purpose shall be successfully adhered to, and if we shall be able to array, in a candid temper, and with circumspect and comprehensive pertinency, the considerations that should control the adjudication of this Tribunal upon the issues thus raised for its solution, we may hope to render, in aid of the deliberations of the Arbitrators, in some degree, the service which it was the object of the Fifth Article of the Treaty to provide.

If, however, we should have the misfortune to fail in our estimate of the true points of the controversy, or in our efforts to meet them, as they shall present themselves to the greater learning and intelligence of the Tribunal, such error or misconception will not be remediless. The Arbitrators may at any time before their deliberations are closed, "if they desire further elucidation with regard to any point, require a written or printed statement or argument, or oral argument by Counsel upon it." With any such requirement, it will be, at all times and in any form, both our duty and our pleasure to comply, and we shall hold ourselves in readiness to attend upon the wishes of the Arbitrators in this regard.

II.

THE CONTROVERSY SUBMITTED

TO ARBITRATION.

The Counsel of the United States, in propounding to this august Tribunal the cause in controversy between that Nation and Great Britain, which its deliberations are to explore and its award to determine, have no occasion to feel that the celebrated publicists who represent the friendly Nations which take part in this great arbitration, are less instructed, already, in the general character and history of the public transactions which are to form the groundwork of the Argument, than the eminent public servants of the contending Parties, who are joined with them in the composition of the Tribunal.

If the publicity and prominence of these events, so recent in the memory, did not themselves preclude any such suggestion, the ample record supplied by the documents presented to the Tribunal by the two Governments, has put the Arbitration in full possession of all facts, and their evidence, which, in the judgment of any one, can be thought relevant to the discussion of the principal and