TENTH DAY, APRIL i8™, 1893. 



The Tribunal met pursuant to adjournment. 



The President. Before Mr. Carter proceeds, I would beg to oft'er an 

 observation. In the course of the last sitting we had, I might almost 

 say, some conversation about a delicate matter, a matter which is the 

 subject of much controversy in international law — that of the responsi- 

 bility of nations for their justice, or for the justice that is administered 

 by them. I beg to remark that my intention was not at all to express 

 any opinion. I merely wanted to know the extent and purport of the 

 contention of the party concerned. I believe that whenever one of us 

 addresses one of the learned counsel on either side it is always with 

 the intention of ascertaining how far the intention and the contention of 

 both parties, or of either party, go, and not at all to express a personal 

 opinion, which of course on our bench we are not called upon to do 5 

 and since in this particular case if the words which have been pro- 

 nounced were misconstrued, it is much less our intention to express 

 any opinion which would be considered as binding upon the respective 

 countries or governments to which either of us may happen to belong. 

 It is in reference to the words which I spoke of in our last sitting that 

 1 think it necessary to nmke this remaik. 



Mr. Carter. I so understood the learned President. 



The President. Mr. Carter, if you please to proceed, we will be glad 

 to hear you. 



Mr. Carter, ]\Ir. President, my attention has been called to a copy 

 pf the London Times of Monday which contains some reference to my 

 argument of Friday, and in certain respects misrepresented me to such 

 an extent that 1 feel hardly at liberty to x^ass it without notice. I can- 

 not, of course, think myself called upon to correct all misrepresenta- 

 tions of what I may say which may be found in the journals of the day; 

 and I should not say a word in reference to this, except that it repre- 

 sented me as making some very disparaging allusions to a distinguished 

 and very worthy judge of a high court of the United States — I mean 

 the District Judge of the United States for the district of Alaska. I 

 made no observation whatever dispaiaging to him. I did indeed say 

 til at the Government of the United States could not be held responsi- 

 ble for the grounds and reasons which judges assign in the decisions 

 which they might give; that, if that were the case, the Government 

 might be held responsible for the utterances, as I said — and the obser- 

 vation might in good taste have been better withheld — of any two- 

 penny justice of the peace. But, of course, I did not ai)ply that obser- 

 vation to Judge Dawson, or intend in any manner to make any dis- 

 paraging reference to him. I did not even say that his judgm.ent was 

 incorrect. On the contrary, his judgment, so far as related to the con- 

 demnation of the vessel, was a sound and correct judgment, which in 

 the due course of my argument, I shall endeavor to defend; and 1 have 

 no doubt it would have been affirmed to that extent by the Supreme 



109 



