104 'I'll' TUI:ATV of WASHINGTON. 



tlie ''C'liarLTc*' and the "Itcnsons" can not Lc accldcDt- 

 al : It must liave its cause in idiosyncrasies of mental 

 constitution. 



Tliis vacillation or contradictoriness of opinion, 

 Avhicli strikes the ^Teics so mudi, pervades tlic "Kea- 

 sons." 



Thus Sir Alexander admits want of due diligence 

 in the matter of the Ahilxoiia, and yet stoutly denies 

 that the United States had any trood cause of com- 

 l)laint against (Jreat l)ritain. lie insists tliat j\Iinis- 

 tci's were to olViciate witliin the limits of municii)al 

 law, and yet admits that such is not the law of na- 

 tions, the lorce of which he also recognizes. lie de- 

 nies that the Ministers can lawfully exercise any pre- 

 rogative power in such matt<'rs, and yet justifies and 

 a}ii)roves the exercise of it [although too late] in the 

 casi" of the SJicnandoah. 



The jS\'}rs also calls attention to Sir Alexander's 

 " disalTection to the conditions under which he dis- 

 charges his task, a task voluntarily accepted with 

 full knowledge of thosi' conditions." "lie criticises 

 advei'sely the Treaty of AVashington : . . . these criti- 

 cisms seem to lis to be cxtrd vires. A derived author- 

 ity ought surely to resjiect its source. . . . Other con- 

 siderations than those laid down for him have certain- 

 ly been present to the mind of Sir Alexander Cock- 

 burn," etc. 



There is manifest justness in this criticism. AVhat 

 business had Sir Alexander to indulge in continual 

 crimination of tlie Treaty of Washington, while act- 

 ing as Arbitrator under it, and possessing no pow- 



