ALABAMA CLAIMS. 131 



The Reasons are on their face, and as the London 

 Press could not fail to perceive and admit, &quot; an elab 

 orate reply to the American Case&quot; [that is to say, an 

 advocate s plea], u rather than a judicial verdict.&quot; 

 [Telegraph, September 25.] 



It is, in truth, a mere nisi prius argument, not up 

 to the level of an argument in bane; inappropriate 

 to the character of a judge; and which might have 

 been quite in place at Geneva as an u Argument&quot; in 

 the cause, provided any British Counsel could have 

 been found to write so acrimoniously and reason so 

 badly as Sir Alexander. 



To establish these positions, it would suffice to cite 

 some of the criticisms of the London Press. 



The Telegraph [September 26] argumentatively 

 demonstrates the palpable fallacy of the reasoning 

 by which Sir Alexander endeavors to excuse the ad 

 mitted violation of law and the want of due dili 

 gence of the British Government in the case of the 

 Florida, especially at Nassau. 



The News [September 26] condemns and regrets 

 the declaration made by Sir Alexander in his &quot; Rea 

 sons &quot; twice, where he speaks of himself &quot; sitting on 

 the Tribunal as in some sense the representative of 

 Great Britain,&quot; and contrasts this with the sounder 

 view of his duty expressed in Parliament by Lord 

 Cairns. 



Compare, now, this observation of the Neics with 

 certain pertinent remarks of the Telegraph [Septem 

 ber 25]. Speaking of Mr. Adams, it says : &quot; He put 

 aside the temper of the* advocate when he took his 



