ALABAMA CLAIMS. 1385 
er or jurisdiction except such as the Treaty confers? 
To do so was indecent in itself, and could have no ef: 
fect other than to embarrass the British Government. 
With his habitual inconsistency of thought, to be 
sure, he advises submission to the judgment of the 
Arbitrators, while exhausting himself in efforts to 
shake its moral strength and that of the Treaty. The 
Times [September 28] plainly sees that the “Rea- 
sons” of Sir Alexander “will be duly turned to ac- 
count by Opposition critics.” And perhaps that was 
one of the objects Sir Alexander had in view, in thus 
usurping the function to judge the Treaty under the 
cover of acting as Arbitrator to judge the specific 
questions submitted by the Treaty. 
The Zimes admits that the “severity of the criti- 
cism passed by the Chief Justice on the United States 
and their Agents, and even on his colleagues, may, 
from a diplomatic point of view, be some ground for 
regret ;”... that “perhaps he was too ready to ‘con- 
sider himself the representative of England;” that. 
“perhaps he takes more than a judicial pleasure” in 
one argumentative suggestion; and that “he dwells, 
perhaps, with something too much of the delight of 
an advocate” on some other point; and in each one 
of these admissions, qualified as they are, we perceive 
recognition of the fact that, in his “Reasons,” Sir 
Alexander does not speak as an international Arbi- 
trator, or manifest the qualities which ought to char- 
acterize a Chief Justice. 
The WVews indicates other singular traits of “irrel- 
evance” and confusion of mind in the “ Reasons.” 
