184 THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 
the “Charge” and the “Reasons” can not be accident- 
al: it must have its cause in idiosyncrasies of mental 
constitution. 
This vacillation or contradictoriness of opinion, 
which strikes the News so much, pervades the “ Rea- 
sons.” 
Thus Sir Alexander admits want of due diligence 
in the matter of the Alabama, and yet stoutly denies 
that the United States had any good cause of com- 
plaint against Great Britain. He insists that Minis. 
ters were to officiate within the limits of municipal 
law, and yet admits that such is not the law of na- 
tions, the force of which he also recognizes. He de- 
nies that the Ministers can lawfully exercise any pre- 
rogative power in such matters, and yet justifies and 
approves the exercise of it [although too late] in the 
case of the Shenandoah. 
The News also calls attention to Sir Alexander's 
“ disaffection to the conditions under which he dis- 
charges his task, a task voluntarily accepted with 
full knowledge of those conditions.” “He criticises 
adversely the Treaty of Washington: ... these criti- 
cisms seem to us to be eatra vires. A derived author- 
ity ought surely to respect its source. ... Other con- 
siderations than those laid down for him have certain- 
ly been present to the mind of Sir Alexander Cock- 
burn,” ete. 
There is manifest justness in this criticism. What 
business had Sir Alexander to indulge in continual 
crimination of the Treaty of Washington, while act- 
ing as Arbitrator under it, and possessing no pow- 
