all their cards face upward on
the table. The intelligent reader will not have to be cautioned that
this is a psychological, rather than logical, inference.

If any prevalent arguments on either side fail to be upheld by the
evidence here given, it will be because this evidence does not
appear in the official documents; the editors feel that their
functions do not warrant their inclusion of pleas or testimony
formed outside of the records mentioned above. The time will not
come until long after the close of the war when the conflicting
claims in the vast amount of propagandial literature issued by both
parties can be judicially weighed by impartial historians, and
presented at the bar of public opinion. In the meantime, however, we
can bring before this court the case as officially presented by the
contesting parties, a "perfect enumeration" of all the available.
The editor acts merely in a reporting capacity. He does not
discriminate between "Trojan and Tyrian," unless it be called
discrimination to refuse by allotment of lesser space to inflict on
the party neglecting fully to present its case a penalty beyond that
which necessarily results, in adverse effect, on the mind of the
reader from this omission.

In brief, the controversy is presented as a case in law. The
evidence is given in the correspondence between ministers of state
and the pleadings are presented in the words of responsible
statesmen, who apply this evidence to the issues in question.

Since the validity of the evidence is based not only on its inherent
motive but on the character and authority of those communicating it,
and the force of the pleadings is even more dependent upon the
character and authority of the advocates, it is necessary at the
outset to state the offices held by the chief representatives of the
parties to the controversy, and to present something of their past
records, especially in the case of the more responsible statesmen.
This will also serve to make graphic the story of the great trial
before the bar of the world; it will visualize it as a contest, man
to man, in which the distance between the combatants is eliminated,
and they seem to be in each other's presence, testifying and arguing
in behalf of their respective causes, as in a case at law. And, when
it is borne in mind that these persons are representative of the
dignity of great and sovereign peoples, the exponents and
conservators of their national and individual r