148 THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 



the error of cLavacterlzing liim as " the representative 

 of the Crown, sent forth to discharge his duty to his 

 Sovereign and maintain the honor of his country:" 

 which aftbrds to Mr. Lowe opportunity of responding 

 triuni])hantly as follows : 



"I have not spoken of the Lord Chief Justice in the lan- 

 guage in which the honorable and learned gentleman lias 

 spoken of him, and -which filled me with unbounded astonish- 

 ment. The Lord Chief Justice was sent to Geneva as an Ar- 

 bitrator to act impartially, and not to allow himself to be 

 biased by the fact of his being an Englishman, but to give his 

 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 honorable and learned 

 gentleman as having treated him disrespectfully. But how 

 does the honorable and learned gentleman himself speak of the 

 Lord Chief Justice? He says that learned Judge was a plen- 

 ipotentiary, — that is to say, that he went to Geneva to do the 

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

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

 lor England. The conduct of the Lord Chief Justice neccatives 

 such a statement, because in some respects the learned lord 

 went against us. Then the honorable and learned gentleman 

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

 the honor of this country; but the fact is that he was S€7it to ar- 

 hitrate^ and Sir Mounchll Palmer and others xi^ere sent to defend 

 the honor of the country. It would be a libel on the Lord Chief 

 Justice to insinuate that he looidd undertake the office of fjoing 

 to Geneva nominally hi the character of Arbitrator^ but really 

 to act as ayi advocate and plenipotentiary for this country P 



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

 said on this occasion was 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 



