150 THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 
fore the Tribunal. Neither of them seems to have 
imagined that the cause of truth or of justice would 
have been promoted by going outside of the docu- 
ments and arguments submitted, in order to criticise 
or cavil at the opinions of the British Arbitrator. 
‘We begin with Mr. Adams. His opinions are of 
some length; and, although containing correct state- 
ments of local law where such statements were mate- 
rial, yet deserve to be regarded in the better light: of 
diplomacy and of international jurisprudence. He 
does not descend from the Bench into the arena of the 
Bar. If he had seen fit to do this, he might have dis- 
covered quite as much inducement to acrimony and 
acerbity of discussion in the wanton accusations of 
the entire political life of the United States, which 
the British Case, Counter-Case, and Argument con- 
tain, as Sir Alexander did in any thing which the 
Cases and Argument of the United States contained. 
But he yielded to no such temptation. “He put 
aside the temper of the adyocate,” as the Zélegraph 
truly says, to speak “ with the impartiality of a jurist 
and the delicate honor of a gentleman.” Accordingly, 
his opinions are without blemish either in temper or 
in language. He finds want of due diligence in the 
matter of the Alabama: and so did the British Ar- 
bitrator. He finds extraordinary disregard of law in 
the matter of the Florida: and so did the British 
Arbitrator. He finds a series of acts of scandalous 
wrong perpetrated by officers of the British Govern- 
ment in both these cases: and so did the British Ar- 
bitrator. He can not, as the British Arbitrator does, 
