personal considerations to the single object of win ning 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 Govern ment 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 require ments 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 co 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 ex hibits 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 distiuguishel ability and of unstained honor. In conducting the deliberations of the IIouse of Lords; in presiding over the High Court of Chancery; in partic ipating 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 ex perience of the city of Washington. The eminent persons, who, in the present generation, have represented the British Government here, whether in per manent or special missions, such as Sir Richard Pack enham, 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 cortact 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. IIas 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 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

sufficiently indicated the scope of inquiry or debate, and defined its limits. Within those limits all perti nent 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 "Argu ment." 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 misappre.. hension 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 sum. mary at all; for summary is not the language nor the sense of the Treaty. The Treaty requires each Agent