150 THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 



fore tlie Tribunal. Ncitlicr of tliem sccins to Lave 

 isnagined lliat tlie cause of truth or of justice Avould 

 have been ])romoted by going outside of the docu- 

 ments and arguments submitted, in order to criticise 

 or cavil at tlie opinions of the British Arbitrator. 



We begin with ^Nlr. Adams. His oi)inions are of 

 some 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 

 dii)lon;acy and of international jurisprudence, lie 

 does nut descend from the Bench into the arena of the 

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

 covered (piite as •much inducement to acrimony and 

 acerbity of discussion in the wanton accusations of 

 the entire political life of the United States, Avliich 

 tlie 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. 

 Cut he yielded to no such temptation. "lie j)ut 

 aside the temper of the advocate," as the Telegraph 

 truly says, to speak " with the impartiality of a jurist 

 and the delicate honor of a frentleman." Accordimrlv, 

 his opinions are without blemish either in temper or 

 in language. He finds want of due diligence in the 

 matter of the Ahdama: 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 oilicers of the British Govern- 

 ment in bcUi these cases: and so did the British Ar- 

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



