132 THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 
seat on the Bench, and he performed the difficult duty 
with the impartiality of a jurist and the delicate honor 
of a gentleman.” And this well-merited commenda- 
tion of Mr. Adams is prefatory to the exhibition of 
Sir Alexander Cockburn retaining still “the temper 
of an advocate when he took his seat on the Bench,” 
and not performing his duties “with the impartiality 
of a jurist and the delicate honor of a gentleman,” but 
to the contrary, as shown by his deportment at Gene- 
va, and authenticated under his own hand in these 
“ Reasons.” 
There is no escape from the dilemma: it was hou- 
orable to Mr. Adams to act as a “judge” at Geneva; 
and, of course, to act as a mere “advocate” was dis- 
honorable to Sir Alexander Cockburn. 
And thus we may comprehend at a glance, what 
seems so-remarkable to the Zélegraph [September 26], 
that when we pass from the printed opinions of the 
three neutral Arbitrators, whose “fairness” nobody 
disputes, and from those of the impartial “jurist” 
and honorable “ gentleman,” Mr. Charles Francis Ad- 
ams, to the “Reasons” of Sir Alexander Cockburn, 
“We seem to go into another climate of opinion. ... 
We find different premises, a different bias, a differ- 
ent logic, and we might almost say different facts.” 
So it is, indeed; and the explanation is obvious. 
The “ dimata” se Count Sclopis, Baron d’Itajubd, Mr. 
Steempfli, and Mr. Adams, was that of fairness, judl- 
cial dignity, impartiality, gentlemanly honor, such as 
belonged to their place as Arbitrators: the “climate” 
of Sir Alexander Cockburn was that of a self-appoint- 
