144 ORAL ARGUMENT OP SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P, 



and make an observation wliicli applies to a good many witnesses in 

 this case, that is with reference to the absence of cross examination. 

 This is tlie first Indian I have read I believe, I mean at any rate the 

 iirst that 1 have noted, and he says. 



In 1887, about the Ist of June, I went into the Behring sea in my own schooner, the 

 Lottie, and hunted about 60 miles olf the islands, and secured about 700 seals, nujst 

 of which were cows in milk. These cows liad milk in tlieir breasts, but had no 

 pups in them. I returned to the Beliring Sea in my own boat, the Lottie, in 1889, 

 and also in 1891, and sealed all the way from 100 to 180 miles from the St. George and 

 St. Paul Islands the catch of these two years were of about the same character as 

 those caught in 1887, and were mostly females that had given birth to their young, 

 and were in mill?:. 



I again note, in no one of these questions does attention seem to have 

 been drawn to the question whether the milli was drying up or not. 

 Tliese are Makah Indians, and I need not. remind the Tribunal that a 

 great deal depends on the intelligence of these men and the way the 

 questions are jjut, and what is now written down in a consecutive affi- 

 davit may not really represent the actual meaning he intended to con- 

 vey, but requires to be tested. That being known I will ask the 

 Tribunal to turn to page 176 of the second volume of the Appendix to 

 the Counter Case. 



The President. — It appears that this Indian was the owner of a 

 schooner. 



Hir Richard Webster. — He was the owner of a schooner. I did 

 not mean to note that in i)assing, but it has an important bearing on a 

 matter which has been referred to. 



The President. — You mean on the Indian sealing. 



Sir EiCHAED Webster. — Yes, on the Indian sealing. There are 

 many instances of Indians owning the schooners and going out in 

 them. Therefore, it is quite a mistake to suppose that they are persons 

 who only hunt in canoes. 1 merely refer to this iu order that I may at 

 once tell you what passed in reference to the cross-examination of wit- 

 nesses like this, and I therefore call your attention to page 17(3 of the 

 second volume of the appendix to the British Counter Case. 



That is the evidence of Mr. Belyea, and he says: 



That on the 29th day of November last I went to the Indian village of Neah Bay, 

 in the State of Washington, United States of America, on the Dominion of Canada 

 steamer "Quadra", for the purpose of securing the evidence of the Indians there for 

 use before the Arl)itration on the Behring Sea Fur-seal question. 



That I took with me as an interpreter one Andrew Laiug, and immediately n])on 

 arrival at Neab Bay I sent Laing on shore to enquire of the Indians whether they 

 were willing to give the evidence. On his return to the "Quadra", he iutormed me 

 that the Indian Agent there had forbidden the Indians to give any evidence to the 

 British side without his permission, and that the Indians were willing to give evi- 

 dence if the agent would permit them. 



That I inuuediately went on shore and called upon the Indian Agent, one John 

 P. M. Glynn. 



Mr. John P. M. Glynn was the gentleman who witnessed the greater 

 proportion of the aftidavits that had been sworn by the Indians on 

 beiialf of the United States. 



I told him what I wanted. His reply in effect was that the Indians had an idea 

 that the sealing on the coast would be stop]ied and would not say anything to me 

 as it might injure them. I told him I understood that to be one of the objects of the 

 American Government, and if the Indians wished to prevent it tliey would be acting 

 in their own interest to give me their views. He then said the Indians liad already 

 given evidence to the officers of the United States Government for use on the Arbi- 

 tration, and he did not consider it fair to either the Indinns or the United States 

 Government to have them examined by the British. I told him I was willing to take 

 the statements of the Indiiins in his presence, and he then said he refused under 

 any circumstances to allow the Indians of his Agency to give me any evidence about 



