148 I'HK TKEATY OF WASHINGTON. 



the error of cliaracterlzlng lilni as " the representative 

 of the Crown, sent fortli to discharge liis duty to liis 

 Soverei'-'-u and maintain the lionor of his country." 

 which alVords to Mr. Lowe opportunity of responding 

 triumphantly as follows: 



"I li.ivc not spoken of the Lord Chief Justice in tlio Inn- 

 crunL;c in Avliieli the lionorablc .and lcarnc<l gentleman lias 

 ppoken of him, and •which filled nic 'with unbounded astonihh- 

 nicnt. Tlie Lord Ciiief Justice was sent to Geneva as an Ar- 

 l»itrator to act impartially, and not to allow liimself to be 

 biascii by the fact of his beincj an Englishman, but to give liis 

 judgment on what he thought to be the merits of the case. 

 That is my belief with regard to the Lord Chief Justice, with 

 regard to whom I am arraigned by the honor.ablc and learned 

 gentleman as having treated him disrespectfully. ]jut how 

 does the honorable and learned gentleman himself speak of the 

 .Lord Chief Justice? lie says that learned Judge was a i)len- 

 ipotenti.afy, — tliat is to say, tliat he went to Geneva to do the 

 work of England, and not to decide between two parties im- 

 ]iartially, but to be biased in his course, and to go all lengths 

 lor England. The conduct of the Lord Chief Justice negatives 

 such a statement, because in some respects the learned lord 

 went against ns. Then the lionorablc and learned gentleman 

 said that the Lord Chief Justice Avas sent to Geneva to defend 

 the honor of this country; but the fact is that Ac xcaa sent to ar- 

 bilratc^ and l>ir Jloiimldl Palmer and ot/icrs were sent to defend 

 t/te /lonor oft/ic country. Jl icordd be a libel on the Lord Chuf 

 Justice to insinuate that he irould iindertalKe the office of (join g 

 to Genera noniinalbj in the character of Arbitrator, but rcalbj 

 to act as an advocate and idcnipotodiary for this country.'''' 



It is difficult to judge how much of what Mr. Lowe 

 salel on this occasion Avas intended as sincere defense 

 of the Chief Justice, and how much was mere sarcasm. 

 But this uncertainty is due to the ambiguous and 

 equivocal conduct of the Chief Justice himself, and 



