150 THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 



fore the Tribunal. Neither of them seems to have 

 imagined that the cause of truth or of justice would 

 have been promoted by going outside of the docu 

 ments and arguments submitted, in order to criticise 

 or cavil at the opinions of the British Arbitrator. 



We begin with Mr. Adams. His opinions are of 

 gome length; and, although containing correct state 

 ments of local law where such statements were mate 

 rial, yet deserve to be regarded in the better light of 

 diplomacy and of international jurisprudence. He 

 does not descend from the Bench into the arena of the 

 Bar. If he had seen fit to do this, he might have dis 

 covered quite as much inducement to acrimony and 

 acerbity of discussion in the wanton accusations of 

 the entire political life of the United States, which 

 the British Case, Counter-Case, and Argument con 

 tain, as Sir Alexander did in any thing which the 

 Cases and Argument of the United States contained. 

 But he yielded to no such temptation. &quot;He put 

 aside the temper of the advocate,&quot; as the Telegraph 

 truly says, to speak &quot; with the impartiality of a jurist 

 and the delicate honor of a gentleman.&quot; Accordingly, 

 his opinions are without f blemish either in temper or 

 in language. He finds \vant of due diligence in the 

 matter of the Alabama: and so did the British Ar 

 bitrator. He finds extraordinary disregard of law in 

 the matter of the Florida: and so did the British 

 Arbitrator. He finds a series of acts of scandalous 

 wrong perpetrated by officers of the British Govern 

 ment in both these cases: and so did the British Ar 

 bitrator. He can not, as the British Arbitrator does, 



