122 ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 



pendent of their mother; and I shall call attention to that later on in 

 connection with the evidence which I have to call particnlar attention 

 to about the killing of females with milk in their breasts at sea at cer- 

 tain times later in the year. 



I want now to make a digression in order to save repetition later on. 

 This is the first reference that I have made to Mr. Elliott. I ask per- 

 mission of the Tribunal for a very few minutes to let me put clearly 

 before them what are the facts with regard to Mr. Elliott, his position 

 and his reports, for of all things that are astonishing in the conduct 

 of this case the abandonment of Mr. Elliott's report of 1890 is the most 

 astonishing. Sir, there is not the slightest ground in the evidence or 

 in anything before the court for regarding Mr. Elliott as other than a 

 man of impartiality and of accuracy; but I am not going to allow it to 

 remain upon my statement or upon anything which I cannot vouch for 

 from the documents. May I for a few moments before the court 

 adjourns put this matter before them as briefly as possible. 



You will remember, Mr. President, that Mr. Elliott was appointed 

 under an act of Congress. He has made statements in his report to 

 which I shall come later on in my argument — statements of fact that 

 are absolutely inconsistent with the United States case. Tliat may be 

 a good reason for suppressing his report or it may be a bad reason. 

 So far as I know upon the whole of this evidence it is the only reason 

 that can fairly be suggested. Now, Mr. President how does the matter 

 stand? There are categorical statements of fact, extending over many 

 days in Mr. Elliott's report, to which I have to call attention later, 

 which are capable of distinct contradiction. He was accompanied on 

 that visit in the year 1890 by not less than four Government agents, 

 Mr. GofC, Mr. Nettleton, Mr. Lavender and Mr. IMurray. There was 

 also present on that island during a great part of the time a perfectly 

 independent gentleman, Prof. Palmer. I am quite aware that Mr. 

 Foster has said that they do not agree with Mr. Palmer's conclusions; 

 and I was not surprised, 'for whenever. 



Mr. Foster. — 1 did not say that. 



Sir Richard Webster. — I so understood you. 



Mr. Foster. — I said a great many of them. 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — For whenever a statement is made, or evi- 

 dence is given, I am aware, against the view of the United States, the 

 United States do say that they do not agree with that; and of course 

 they are quite within, their rights. But my point is this, Mr. President; 

 and I ask the court to consider this in fairness to the case I am pre- 

 senting: that of those four gentlemen though they make affidavits on 

 some minor points, to which I shall call attention later on, not one of 

 those ibur gentlemen has made any affidavit inconsistent with Mr. 

 Elliott's statements of fact. Nay, more; Mr. Stanley Brown was sent 

 to the islands in 1891, Mr. Elliott having made his report in the autumn 

 of 1890. I do not know whether Mr. Stanley Brown had Mr. Elliott's 

 report in his hand or not. W^e have never been told, and I have no 

 right to assume it; but one thing is certain, he either had it or he had 

 it not. If he had it, he has not contradicted Mr. Elliott on the most 

 important and salient facts, as I shall show later on. If he had it not, 

 I do not think the court will think it was the right thing to send a per- 

 fectly independent gentleman to the islands without giving him some 

 information at any rate as to what the report was which had been pre- 

 sented to the Government by their accredited agent. Therefore, the 

 first point tliat I make with regard to this is that on three separate 

 occasions Mr. Elliott has been put forward by the United States Gov- 



