ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 107 



inland sea, and as sucli had been conveved in part by Enssia to tbc 

 United States." 



That does not say that the United States ever took that position. It 

 only says that that was the ground upon wldch the vessels had been 

 condemned. But I think tlie intent was to convey the notion that that 

 was the attitude taken by the United States. The paragraph would be 

 meaningless had it not that intent. 



It is literally true that libels were filed, in the cases of the first seiz- 

 ures, against the British vessels in the United States District Court of 

 Alaska, and that they were condemned; and the judge in his charge 

 to the jury, or in his opinion giving judgment, went into the case and 

 stated that Kussia by this Ukase had acquired a territorial dominion in 

 Bering Sea. He stated thatas his opinion ; but hasa judge in the United 

 States District Court of Alaska an authority to speak in an interna- 

 tional controversy on behalf of the United States? Certainly none 

 whatever. The position of the United States cannot be gathered from 

 what a judge of a United States court happens to say in a charge to 

 the jury. If it can, the United States would be responsible for the 

 utterances of every twopenny justice of the peace throughout the laud 5 

 which they would be very sorry to be. 



Where is the position of the United States in reference to this con- 

 troversy to be sought and found? In the utterances, the responsible 

 utterances, of that Government made to Great Britain in diplomatic 

 form. There is the place, and the only place, where they can properly 

 be sought. 



The President. Do you not think a Government is responsible to 

 other nations for its judges? 



Mr. Carter. To a certain extent, it is; and to a certain extent, it is 

 not. 



The President. Tou must take the nation as a whole. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. Judges in the United States are independent of 

 the Government. 



The President. Not as a nation? 



Mr. Justice Harlan. Yes; they are independent of the nation. 



Mr. Carter. If a French citizen should have the misfortune to be 

 involved in litigation in the United States, and a judgment should be 

 pronounced against him which he did not like, and he should appeal to 

 his own Government, and say he did not like it, and the Government 

 should appeal to the United States, he would be told that he had no rem- 

 edy; that the Government of the United States was not responsible for 

 the conclusions to which the judges came. They might be law; they 

 might not be law. He had had a fair trial ; he had had the same oppor- 

 tunity which citizens of the United States have, and that is all the 

 United States could give him; and I apprehend a similar answer would 

 be made by the Government of France in a similar case. 



The President. I am not quite sure as to that. 



Mr. Carter. I do not know about France, but I am very sure that 

 is the answer which would be given by Great Britain in a similar case. 



The President. It is a rather difficult, and often-discussed point 

 of international law, as to what is the responsibility of a nation. 



Mr. Carter. Every Government is, of course, responsible in a cer- 

 tain sense to foreign nations, that their citizens, when they happen to 

 fall within the reach of justice, shall obtain justice. That is, that they 

 shall obtain the same sort of justice which is administered to the citi- 

 zens of the country. That is the extent of the foreign obligation. 



Sir Charles Eussell. You have got a British ship on the ground 

 of that judgment. 



