136 THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 



Examination of the substance of the " Reasons" 

 leads to still more unfavorable conclusions. 

 . While the Chief Justice exhausts himself in fault- 

 finding with the Counsel of the United States, it is 

 observable that he seldom, if ever, grapples with their 

 arguments, but shoots off instead into epithets of mere 

 vituperation. Indeed, if it w^ere worth while, it would 

 be easy to show that he did not really read that ^vhich 

 he so interaperately criticises. And when he under- 

 takes to deal with the text, it is only in the disingen- 

 uous manner of picking out here and there a detached 

 paragraph or phrase for comment, regardless of the 

 context or the creneral line of aro;ument. 



Nevertheless, when he has occasion to differ in 

 opinion with the Counsel of the United States, such 

 is the perverted state of passion and prejudice in 

 which he thinks and writes, that he imputes to us in- 

 tention to practice on the " supposed credulity and 

 io;norance" of the Tribunal. 



We were not amenable in anywise to the British 

 Arl)itrator ; but, if we had been barristers in his own 

 Court of whom such things were said by him, it would 

 have been an example of judicial indecency to parallel 

 which it would be necessary to go back to the days 

 of infiimous judges like Jeffreys or Scroggs. 



Let Sir Alexander be judged by his own rule. 

 Cramming, as he did at Geneva, in the preparation of 

 his " Reasons,'' he examined superficially and wrote 

 precipitately : in consequence of which he copied 

 from the Arguments for the British Government pal- 

 pable errors, which were exposed and corrected in 



