introducing the subject, inquired whether it was true that the treaty provided that the proceedings were to be conducted in English. Mr. Vignaud replied that that was his understanding, though he had not seen the text of the treaty. M. Ribot remarked that "this was a singular condition to be attached to an instrument of this kind, as French was still considered to be the diplomatic language of the world." Mr. Vignaud intimated that the United States would be placed at a great disadvantage were the proceedings of the Court to be conducted in French, as England could easily find among her eminent jurists men speaking French fluently, whereas this was not the case with the United States; and that it should also be taken into consideration that the two nations concerned were both English-speaking nations. Without making any direct reply to this remark, M. Ribot repeated, with a smile, that it "was singular (bizarre) to designate Paris as the place of meeting of a court on which a French judge was to sit, and to ask that judge to render his decision in a foreign language."

In the dispatch sent to Mr. Vignaud, in reply to his report of this interview, he was informed that the President could not refrain from an expression of surprise at the character of M. Ribot's comments. In selecting Paris as the place of meeting of the Tribunal, it was supposed that this act would be interpreted as a mark of confidence in the impartiality and hospitality of the French Government and people, and that no obstacle would there be interposed to the free and convenient dispatch of the business intrusted to the Tribunal. M. Ribot could hardly be unmindful of the fact that the litigant powers are of the same race and use a common language; that the questions involved depended largely upon domestic laws and the application of the common or English law; that the testimony presented would be almost exclusively in the English language; that the American arbitrators and counsel would almost necessarily be persons not proficient in the

French language; that in view of these facts the propriety of the treaty provision was apparent; and that the selection of arbitrators acquainted with the English language was of vital importance. Mr. Vignaud was authorized, however, to say to M. Ribot that the treaty did not preclude any of the foreign members of the Tribunal from rendering his decision in his own or other language, and that the Tribunal would have the power to make such rules as it saw fit for its procedure.

It was felt at Washington that rather than yield to M. Ribot's intimation, it would be better to excuse the French Government from selecting a judge; but no such action proved necessary. M. Ribot had apparently accomplished his purpose in showing his attachment to French as the language of diplomacy, and he was not disposed to press the point. He probably remembered that some years previously, when persistence was shown that French should be used in diplomatic correspondence, it had brought forth the remark from Bismarck that he would find means which would make a dispatch written in the German language intelligible in Paris.

In due time the American and British Governments united in a request to the foreign Powers named in the treaty to select their representatives on the Tribunal. The French Government named Baron de Courcel, who spoke and wrote English with fluency and accuracy. He was an accomplished gentleman, who had held various posts in his own country, and abroad, and had recently held the important position of Ambassador to Germany.

The Italian Government selected as its member the Marquis Visconti-Venosta, one of the most distinguished of its statesmen. He was the nephew of Cavour, and more than any other person was that great man's political heir and successor. He has directed the policy of his Government at several critical periods in its history as Prime Minister, and although quite advanced in years his last service was at the Morocco

Conference at Algeciras in 1905, where he played a conspicuous part. The member from Sweden and Norway was Mr. Gregers Gram, a lawyer and judge of distinction in his own country. After the arbitration he was Prime Minister of his Government, but since the separation of Norway he has not taken an active part in public affairs.

The counsel of the United States were men of the highest standing in their profession, and in an eminent degree possessed the confidence of the country. Edward J. Phelps, the senior counsel, was chosen immediately after the arbitration was determined upon and before the treaty was drafted. He had been our Minister at London during President Cleve land's Administration, had conducted the fur-seal negotiations there, and had consequently given considerable attention to the question. He was a lawyer of such attainments that Mr. Cleveland had considered him a fit person for the high post of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, vacant at the time, but it is understood that, owing to the objection of naturalized Irish citizens because of his treatment of the Fenian question when Minister in London, the President desisted from his nomination.

At the request of Mr. Phelps, James C. Carter of New York City was selected by the President as associate counsel. Mr. Carter had been recognized for some years as the leader of the American Bar. He brought into the case some very necessary qualities for its conduct which fitly supplemented the legal attainments of Mr. Phelps. While the latter was a good speaker and possessed a large grasp of political questions, Mr. Carter was a more deeply read lawyer, a closer reasoner, and could more clearly elucidate an abstract legal principle. Besides, he proved during the progress of the case a safer counselor, as Mr. Phelps was of an impetuous temperament and inclined to reach his conclusions hastily.

The third counsel selected was Judge Henry M. Blodgett, of the United States District Court. He had been long on the