lis TIIH TUKATV OF WASHINGTON. 



Ill SO far as ro^^'\l•(l.s tlie first ])(/int, tlie call for Ar- 

 guincHt- was obviously indiuHMl hy a dcslro to put an 

 end to the imscondy iiiii)()rtiuuti(,'.s of Sir Aloxandor 

 Cockburn ; for the Arbitrators liad in clfcct again 

 a?id again declared that in their judgment there was 

 ^(0 occasion for elucidation or further discussion of 

 the general question of due diligence! ; that the Tri- 

 bunal did not desire any theoretical discussions of 

 abstract questions; and that the practical (piestion 

 of due diligence had been already discussed to satiety 

 in the several Cases and Arguments filed by the re- 

 spective Governments. Wc shall j)crceive in the se- 

 quel how well-founded Averc the objections of the Ti'i- 

 bunal in this respect ; and how devoid of any useful 

 object or ])urposo Jiad been the ill-digested calls of 

 Sir Alexander Cockbui'n. 



To the other (piestions proj"»ounded by the Baron 

 d'ltajubji, no objection coidd be mad(! : they were fit 

 subjects of the "elucidation" contemplated by the 

 Treaty. 



CASK OF TUH "ALAHAMA" DFXIDKD. 



The Arbitrators then proceeded to read alphabet- 

 ically their opinions in the case o^ the AIi(ha ma, — that 

 is to say, ]\[r. Adams, Sir Alexander Cockburn, Count 

 Sclopis, and jSIr. StaMuptU read argumentative state- 

 ments at length, and the Baron d'ltajubd expressed 

 his concurrence in the statement made by Sir Alex- 

 ander Cockburn. 



In this case the Arbitrators were unanimously of 

 opinion, — the British Arbitrator equally with liis 



