ALABAMA CLAIMS. 13 



o 



ed " advocate," making no pretensions to " fairness " or 

 "impartiality," but, Avitli the "premises," "bias," "log. 

 ic," and " fticts " of siicli an advocate, drawing up a 

 passionate, rhetorical plea, as the officious "represent- 

 ative of Great Britain." 



As such "representative of Great Britain," if he be 

 not promptly disavowed by the British Government, 

 it will be found that his " Reasons " lay clown many 

 positions which may somewhat embarrass present or 

 subsequent Ministers. 



The JVetvs notices numerous contradictory opinions 

 or conclusions which appear in the " Reasons." In 

 one place Sir Alexander complains that <t«v/ Rules are 

 laid down by the Treaty, and in another j^lace ex- 

 presses the conviction that it is well to settle such 

 cpiestions by Treaty Rules. " He complains . . . that 

 the Arbitrators have not been left free to apply the 

 hitherto received princij^les of international law, and 

 that they have ; that rules have been laid down, 

 and that they have not; that definitions have been 

 framed, and that they have not been framed." Here 

 is most exc[uisite confusion of ideas. It is the very 

 same extraordinary and characteristic method of 

 thinking and writing which Mr. Finlason had ex- 

 hibited at length, and which Mr. Gathorne Hardy 

 pointed out in the case of the Queen against Nor- 

 ton: the "inflammatory statements," — the "extra-ju- 

 dicial denunciation," the "extra-judicial declamation," 

 the going "from one side to another," and the say- 

 ing "it is" and "it is not" upon every point of law. 

 The perfect similitude of these repulsive features of 



