AL ABASIA CLAIMS. 149 



to his own declaration that, while engaged in writ 

 ing an extra-judicial pamphlet, under the false pre 

 tense of its being the act of an Arbitrator, he was 

 really speaking as the Representative of Great Brit 

 ain. That was the mistake of the Chief Justice. It 

 was competent for him, after running away from the 

 Tribunal as he did, to publish in England the con-jj 

 tents of the first part of the &quot;Reasons&quot; as a personal]! 

 act. It was dishonorable in him to smuggle it inter 

 the archives of the Tribunal, and to publish it in the 

 London Gazette as the official act of an Arbitrator. 



In view of all these incidents, and of the extraordi 

 nary contrast between the conduct of Mr. Adams and 

 Sir Alexander Cockburn, as admitted by Englishmen 

 themselves, it is easy to comprehend that, while the 

 former has been honored with the express official 

 commendation of l)otli Governments, the latter, by 

 wantonly insulting his fellow - Arbitrators and the 

 United States, has, while receiving partisan praise in 

 Parliament, rendered it difficult, if not impossible, for 

 him to receive the hearty approval even of his own 

 Government. 



OPDsIOXS OF THE OTHER ARBITRATORS. 



The other Arbitrators also placed on record their 

 separate opinions as finally corrected, all which de 

 serve notice. Each of these opinions consists of an 

 affirmative exposition of the views of the Arbitrator 

 who speaks. Count Sclopis, Mr. Staempfli, the Vicomte 

 dTtajuba, and Mr. Adams, each of them states his con 

 clusions founded on the documents and arguments be- 



