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,” he added, “had made it necessary to cull 
in other parties [he does not say, others of the Law Officers], 
whose opinion had been at last given for the detention of the 
gun-boat.” 
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 “ Law Officers of the Crown,” 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 “it was not necessary on the 
29th of July to call in new parties, but only to call upon the 
old.” 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 “an ungenerous sneer,” remarks: 
“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.” 
The Chief Justice unconsciously admits that if Lord Russell 
said this, “he stated that which was untrue,” 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 United States, their Agent, and their 
Counsel, is rendered the more conspicuous here by the fact 
that, when he threw out this “ ungenerous sneer” and this “ un- 
