between Great Britain and other Governments, is to be determined according to the provisions of that Act, and that in such a transcendent question the British Ministers are under the necessity of floundering along in the flat morass of the meaningless verbosity and confused circumlocution of any Act of Parliament." 1

Let it not be thought, however, that this eminent lawyer was so constituted that he could not justly appreciate the greatness of England. In fairness to Mr. Cushing I may anticipate a little and quote an eloquent passage from his supplementary argument:

"I honor England. The substance, and even the forms of the institutions of the United States are borrowed from the mother-country. We are what we are, first of all, because we are of British race, language, religion, genius, education, and character. I have studied England at home, in her Colonies, in her establishments beyond the seas, and, above all, in her magnificent Indian Empire. She is rich, great, and powerful as a State, not, in my opinion, because of the subjection of her Ministers to the scrupulous and daily criticism of the House of Commons, but in spite of it, as I remember to have heard said by the late Lord Palmerston. It is not the strong, but rather the weak side of her Government, as one sees, moreover, in the present controversy. It is not worth while, therefore, to deny to the Crown executive powers necessary for the peace of the Kingdom; nor, in the present case, to raise cries of arbitrary power, in the face of the admitted omnipotence, that is to say, of the absolute despotic power of Parliament, whose real force tends every day to

1 Gen. Arb., vol. iii, p. 28.

concentrate itself more and more in the House of Commons alone."

" 1

The second subdivision of the thirteenth chapter, entitled "Questions of Jurisdiction," was the work of Mr. Davis. It treats of the vexed subject of "National," or, as preferably styled in England, "Indirect" Claims. This portion of the argument is clear and forcible. It demonstrates the soundness of the position that the Tribunal were fully empowered by the Treaty to entertain and pass upon claims of this nature.

We had hardly begun in earnest to get to work upon the Argument when obstacles presented themselves to our having the printing in English accurately and expeditiously done. In order to dissipate our fears lest the books should not be printed, bound, and ready for delivery upon the date stipulated, Mr. Davis found it necessary to resort elsewhere for help. He accordingly despatched Mr. John Davis to London, in search of competent printers. That energetic young man returned promptly and brought with him a squad of English compositors. The novel importation was regarded by the French printers with perfect good-nature. Indeed, so far from exhibiting any displeasure, they met the Englishmen with demonstrations of welcome, cheering them as they appeared upon the scene. Finally, all was ready, the Argument, signed "C. Cushing, Wm. M. Evarts, M. R. Waite," 1 Gen. Arb., vol. iii, p. 498.

was handed by Counsel to the Agent on the 10th of June. With this action, the work prosecuted at Paris came to an end.

The complete text of the Argument, together with an Appendix, made a volume of five hundred and sixty pages. The elucidation of the several points is thorough, and the reasoning direct and cogent. To the lawyer or the publicist it remains a production that repays a careful study. It may be pronounced in every respect worthy of the great cause in which it aimed to illuminate the minds of the Arbitrators. "This Argument," says Mr. Davis, "has attracted great attention throughout Europe, and has received universal praise as a masterly vindication of our rights."1

1 Report to Mr. Fish, 21 September, 1872, Gen. Arb., vol. iv, p. 6.

CHAPTER V

THE PLEADINGS: CASES AND COUNTER-CASES

HERE we may pause to consider briefly what may be styled the pleadings in this great international lawsuit. Although involving an issue of profound significance, the field of contention was after all not extensive. If one examine closely the Case and CounterCase of the respective parties, he will discover that the complaint and the defence are each capable of being brought within a comparatively narrow compass. When later we shall view in detail the proceedings at Geneva, and note the persistent but unsuccessful attempts of the Counsel for Great Britain to obtain leave for laying before the Tribunal still further argument than that already filed, we shall observe how far the adoption of the Three Rules in the Treaty served to simplify the issue. It will appear that the one point of the greatest difficulty to decide was the extent of the damages for which England might justly be held responsible. Little doubt could exist as to how the neutral Arbitrators would deal with the charge of neglect on the part of the Government of Great Britain, in permitting the cruisers to escape. As that interesting writer and stout defender of the Confederacy, Captain Bullock, puts it:

"They [the neutral Arbitrators] perceived, however,

that Great Britain had virtually confessed that she owed both reparation and compensation to the United States by admitting that the 'Alabama and other vessels' had escaped from her jurisdiction, and by expressing regret for the injury they had inflicted; and it must have appeared to them that all previous contentions to the contrary had been abandoned by Great Britain, and that their only course was to judge between the parties according to the conditions agreed upon between them, and to keep the damages down to a reasonable figure." 1

The Case of the United States of necessity had to be a story of alleged grievances. The American people were bringing their complaint before a body of impartial listeners. A plain, concise statement was wanted. The narrative required a style easily to be understood, and such as would interest and hold the attention of Arbitrators not accustomed to speak the English language.

Fortunately for the United States, its Agent, as we have already observed, could think and write with unusual clearness. Bancroft Davis's style was both easy and animated. His work bears the mark of a hand practised in the best forms of literary expression. One may be permitted to doubt whether any author of repute could have produced a volume more entertaining had he been commissioned by a publisher to furnish a brief, historic account of those occurrences in the form of a popular sketch. In a word,

1 The Secret Service of the Confederate States in Europe (1884), vol. ii, p. 393.