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



iilar individuals, but all tlie Indians who are there have been examined 

 by Mr. McGlynn, or in his presence, and this objection is talien. Of 

 course, it is entirely for the Tribunal, but I do not think this ought to 

 be made in any slnvpe or form a charge against the United States 

 Government, and I hope you will understand that I make no such 

 charge; but I do say that, when we have to weigh the value of the 

 testimony, it is a circumstance that the Tribunal will take into consid- 

 eration, and I press it no further than that. Mr, Tnpper reminds me 

 that we had not the slightest reason, till Mr. Belyea got there, to 

 anticipate that there would be any difficulty. The United States had 

 examined the Indians on the British Columbian coast all along, and no 

 hindrance had been put in their way to examine any Indians; and when 

 this happened it was a complete surprise to Mr. Belyea, and it would 

 not have been possible to make any effective remonstrance. But I 

 must not be misunderstood, Sir, and I am sure that the Tribunal will 

 not misunderstand me; I ask them to take it from me that my criticism 

 only goes to the weight of the testimony, and I am entitled to use it for 

 that purpose and I am sure the Members of the Tribunal who are 

 acquainted with those matters will entirely agree. 



The President. — Was this Indian, Claplankoo, who had a schooner 

 of his own, a British or a United States Indian? 



Sir EiCHAKD Webster. — I think he was a United States Indian. 

 It is true that his affidavit is not one that Mr. McGlynn took; but the 

 very next one on page 383, if the Tribunal will look at the United 

 States Appendix beginning at page 377, — that is volume 2 of the 

 Appendix to their Case, and I am only digressing to answer your ques- 

 tion, Mr. President, and to dispose of the matter if I can, — you will see 

 that the first affidavit is by Bowachup. He was a marksman, and the 

 witnesses were McGlynn and Gay. The next is by Peter Brown, who 

 also makes his mark, and McGlynn was the witness. The next is by 

 Landis Callapa, also a marksman; you know the meaning of that, of 

 course, Mr. President: — That is, that he cannot write and naturally 

 cannot read this language. Mr. John McGlynn witnesses that. Then, 

 on page 380, he witnesses Circus Jim. He does not witness Claplanhoo ; 

 probably I should to have made the observation with reference to Circus 

 Jim. Then Frank Davis, also a marksman, is witnessed by McGlynn; 

 Jeff Davis does not appear to be Ellabush, on pages 385 and 38(3, is 

 also a marksman, a Makah Indian, and is witnessed by McGlynn. 

 Alfred Irwing, another witness, witnessed by McGlynn. Ishka, page 

 388, also witnessed by McGlynn. Selwish Johnson, page 38, also 

 witnessed by McGlynn; James Lighthouse, page 390 also witnessed by 

 McGlynn; Osly, page 391, also witnessed by McGlynn; Wilson Parker, 

 page 392, — I only refer to these who are marksmen, — witnessed by 

 McGlynn; John Tysam, page 394, also witnessed by McGlynn; Wat- 

 kins, page 395; Charlie White, page 396; Wispoo, page 397; Hishyulla, 

 page 398; and Thomas Zolnoks, page 399. 



Now the language that those Indians are supposed to have used is of 

 course language not their own — their actual words cannot be, and I do 

 not suggest that it is not a true representation but of all testimony or 

 evidence that desires to be and ought to be tested by crossexamination 

 that is the class of evidence to which the test can be most usefully 

 applied. 



I mention that because it is not to be assumed against us, the whole 

 of this evidence would remain as it is, if the opportunity had been 

 afforded of finding out what these men's real meaning was. The evi- 

 dence taken by another groui) of Indians, which I think was in Van- 



