118 THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 
In so far as regards the first point, the call for Ar. 
gument was obviously induced by a desire to put an 
end to the unseemly importunities of Sir Alexander 
Cockburn; for the Arbitrators had in effect again 
and again declared that in their judgment there was 
no 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 question 
of due diligence had been already discussed to satiety 
in the several Cases and Arguments filed by the re. 
spective Governments. We shall perceive in the se- 
quel how well-founded were the objections of the Tri- 
bunal in this respect; and how devoid of any useful 
object or purpose had been the ill-digested calls of 
Sir Alexander Cockburn. 
To the other questions propounded by the Baron 
dItajub4, no objection could be made: they were fit 
subjects of the “elucidation” contemplated by the 
Treaty. . 
CASE OF THE ‘‘ ALABAMA” DECIDED. 
The Arbitrators then proceeded to read alphabet- 
ically their opinions in the case of the Alabama,—that 
is to say, Mr. Adams, Sir Alexander Cockburn, Count 
Sclopis, and Mr. Stempfli read argumentative state- 
ments at length, and the Baron d’Itajubd 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 his 
