ALABAMA CLAIMS. 133 
ed “advocate,” making no pretensions to “fairness” or 
“impartiality,” but, with the “premises,” “bias,” “log- 
ic,” and “facts” of such an advocate, drawing up a 
paksionaté, rhetorical plea, as the oficions “ 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 down many 
positions which may somewhag embarrass present or 
subsequent Ministers. 
The News notices numerous contradictory opinions 
or conclusions which appear in the “Reasons.” In 
one place Sir Alexander. complains that any Rules are 
laid down by the Treaty, and in another place ex- 
presses the conviction that it is well to settle such 
questions by Treaty Rules. “He complains... that 
the Arbitrators have not been left free to apply the 
hitherto received principles 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 exquisite 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 “extraju- 
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 
