this difference by supplemental treaty. Only a few weeks remained in which to negotiate; and the parties were separated by thousands of miles of ocean. It was necessary, therefore, to negotiate, if at all, by telegraph,—an operation quite as novel as had been that of conducting the business of government in France by means of pigeons or balloons during the siege of Paris. But, before it was possible for the parties to conclude a taty by telegraph, the fatal day arrived, greatly to the embarrassment of the British Government.

PRESENTATION OF ARGUMENTS FOR THE UNITED STATES.

For the course of the United States in this exigen cy was plain before them: it was to present their final Argument to the Tribunal of Arbitration, in con. formity with their own conception of their rights, just as if there were no controversy on the point between them and Great Britain.

The President of the United States was immova bly fixed in the purpose not to withdraw the controverted claims, nor to abstain from making claim be fore the Tribunal in respect to the so-called indirect losses, except in consideration of a new treaty regard.. ing the same, satisfactory to himself and to the Senate of the United States.

In a dispatch of the Secretary of State to the Minister at London, of the 28th of May, 1672, the inducement and object of the United States, in persisting to retain theso claims before the Tribunal, are summa rily stated as follows:

1. "The right under the Treaty to present them.

2. “To have them disposed of and removed from further controversy.

3. "To obtain a decision either for or against the liability of a neutral for claims of that description.

4. "If the liability of a neutral for such claims is admitted in the future, then to insist on payment by Great Britain for those of the past.

5. "Having a caso against Great Britain to have the same principle applied to it that may in the future be invoked against the United States."

Of theso considerations, the last four, it is obvious, are the complete justification of the insertion of our national claims in the Treaty and of their presenta tion in the "Casc."

Hence the duty of the Agent and Counsel of the United States, having charge of the judicial investi gation pending before the Tribunal of Arbitration, remained the same in the interval between December 15th, 1871, and June 15th, 1872, whatever diplomatic discussions or negotiations might be going on between the two Governments. Our instructions were defi nite and peremptory, as the British Government well. understood, to prepare the Counter-Case for the United States, and the final Argument, on the premises of the Treaty as construed by the United States and as explained in the American Case. Our CounterCase was prepared accordingly, as already stated, and filed in English and in French before the Tribunal. And in like manner we prepared our final Argument.

This Argument, consisting of an octavo volume of 495 pages, after discussing fully the various questions of fact and of law involved in the submission to arbi

tration, proceeds to examine the particular claims, national as well as individual,-to maintain the jurisdiction of the Tribunal over both classes of claims,-and to argue the nature and degree of the responsibility of Great Britain to the United States in the premises. In fine, the Argument is co-extensive with the "Case."

We repaired to Geneva in due time, and at the meeting of the Tribunal on the 15th we presented our Argument as required by the Treaty, and, for the better information of the Tribunal, in French as well as in English. That is to say, the Government of the United States, through the means of its official Agent, complied with that last command of the Trea ty of Washington, in virtue of which the Tribunal of Arbitration became formally seized and possessed of all our claims, national as well as private, precisely as if no controversy on the subject existed between the two Governments. The United States were in condi tion to invoke the judgment of the Tribunal, whether Great Britain appeared or not; for Counsel had ample authority of legal doctrine at hand to show that the Tribunal would have power to act even in the absence of Great Britain.

In the anticipation of this contingency, the British Government requested that of the United States to concur in making a joint application to the Tribunal for an adjournment of eight months, in order to afford to the two Governments sufficient time for further negotiation. Mr. Fish replied that the Government of the United States had no reason to desire such adjournment, although the Government intended, and

instructed its Agent, to assent to a motion for adjournment on the part of Great Britain, provided the British Argument were filed in good faith, without offensive notice, or other objectionable accompani

ment.

Thus it became necessary for the British Government to decide for itself how to act in the premises. The course adopted by it was to withhold its Argu ment, and to file a statement, setting forth the recent negotiations for the solution of the difficulty between the two Governments, and the hope that, if time were afforded, such a solution might be found practicable; and thereupon to move an adjournment of eight months, with reserve of all rights in the event of an agreement not being finally arrived at, as expressed in the note which accompanied the British Counter-Case.

DECISION OF THE ARBITRATORS RESPECTING NATIONAL

LOSSES.

These acts having been performed, the Arbitrators adjourned, first to the 17th, and then to the 19th of June, in order to afford time for reflection to themselves and to the two Governments.

It will be taken for granted that in the interval between the 15th and the 19th of June communications by telegraph passed between the respective Agents and their Governments, and consultations took place between the Counsel of both sides and the respective Agents, either orally or in writing, and, with more or less formality, among the Arbitrators, the result of which was announced by Count Sclopis as follows:

"The Arbitrators do not propose to express or imply any opinion upon the point thus in difference between the two Governments as to the interpretation or effect of the Treaty, but it seems to them obvious that the substantial object of the adjournment must be to give the two Governments an op portunity of determining whether the claims in question shall or shall not be submitted to the decision of the Arbitrators, and that any difference between the two Governments on this point may make the adjournment unproductive of any useful effect, and, after a delay of many months, during which both nations may be kept in a state of painful suspense, may end in a result which it is to be presumed both Governments would equally deplore, that of making this arbitration wholly abor tive. This being so, the Arbitrators think it right to state that, after the most careful perusal of all that has been urged on the part of the Government of the United States in respect of these claims, they have arrived, individually and collectively, at the conclusion that these claims do not constitute, upon the principles of international law applicable to such cases, good foundation for an award of compensation or computation of damages between nations; and should, upon such princi ples, be wholly excluded from the consideration of the Tribunal in making its award, even if there were no disagreement between the two Governments as to the competency of the Tribunal to decide thereon. With a view to the settlement of the other claims, to the consideration of which by the Tribunal no exception has been taken on the part of Her Britannic Majesty's Government, the Arbitrators have thought it desirable to lay before the parties this expression of the views they have formed upon the question of public law involved, in order that, after this declaration by the Tribunal, it may be considered by the Government of the United States whether any course can be adopted respecting the first mentioned claims which would relieve the Tribunal from the necessity of deciding upon the present application of Her Britannic Majesty's Government."

Count Sclopis added that it was the intention of the Tribunal that this statement should be consid