ALABAMA CLAIMS. 171 



It deserves to be noted in this relation that al 

 though Edwards and possibly some other of the pub- 



opment of a malady of the Queen s Advocate, Sir John D. 

 Harding, which had utterly incapacited him for the transaction 

 of business. This,&quot; he added, &quot; had made it necessary to call 

 in other parties [he does not say, others of the Laic Officers], 

 whose opinion had been at last given for the detention of the 

 gun-boat.&quot; 



The Counsel of the United States, in their Argument, invite 

 attention to the unsatisfactoriness of this explanation. They 

 found in the Documents annexed to the British Case eight 

 opinions of the &quot;Law Officers of the Crown,&quot; prior to that of 

 July 29th, all of which, except one dated June 30th, are signed 

 by Sir John Harding, and also either by Sir William Atherton 

 or by Sir Roundell Palmer. Thereupon, we inferred that the 

 Queen s Advocate had become sick on or before the 30th of 

 June ; and we also inferred that &quot; it was not necessary on the 

 29th of July to call in new parties, but only to call upon the 

 old.&quot; These inferences were legitimate, and were confirmed in 

 the sequel by the highest authority. 



But thereupon the British Arbitrator, after speaking of the 

 last inference as &quot; an ungenerous sneer,&quot; remarks : 



&quot;The unworthy insinuation here meant to be conveyed is, 

 that Lord Russell stated that which was untrue, an insin 

 uation which will be treated as it deserves by every one who 

 knows him. It is obvious that Mr. Adams must, in this par 

 ticular, have misunderstood his Lordship.&quot; 



The Chief Justice unconsciously admits that if Lord Russell 

 said this, &quot;he stated that which was untrue,&quot; and expects us to 

 disbelieve Mr. Adams in order to shield Lord Russell. 



I prefer to believe Mr. Adams. Nay, the statement imputed 

 to Lord Russell by Mr. Adams is in substance reaffirmed and 

 adopted in the British Case [p. 118]. 



The senseless prejudice which fills the mind of the Chief 

 Justice in reference to the L T nited States, their Agent, and their 

 Counsel, is rendered the more conspicuous here by the fact 

 that, when he threw out this &quot; ungenerous sneer&quot; and this &quot; un- 



