ALABAMA CLAIMS. 1,3X 



The Keasons arc on tlicir face, and as tlie London 

 Press could not fail to jicreeive and admit, "an elalj- 

 orate re])ly to tlic American Case" [tliat is to say, an 

 advocate's pleaj, " rather than a judicial verdict."' 

 \_Tdc(jvaph^ JSeptemljcr 25.] 



It is, in truth, a mere nlxl priua argument, not up 

 to the level of an argument in hanc; inappropriate 

 to the cliaracter of a judge; and which rniglit have 

 been quite in place at Geneva as an "Argument" 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 ll'Ie'jrapli [Septendjer 2G] ai'gumentatively 

 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 

 J'loruhf, especially at Nassau. 



The Kews [September 20] condemns and regrets 

 the declaration made by Sir Alexander in his "liea- 

 sons" twice, where he speaks of himself "sitting on 

 the Ti'ibunal as in some sense the representative of 

 Great Britain," and contrasts this with the sounder 

 view^ of his duty expressed in Parliament by Lord 

 Cairns. 



Compare, now, this observation of the Xeu'.'i with 

 certain pertinent remarks of the Tdegrcq)h [Septem- 

 ])er 25]. Speaking of ^Mr. Adams, it says : " He put 

 aside the temper of the advocate when he took his 



