180 ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 



tion, but facts of which they gaiued tlieir knowledge by such methods 

 as seemed to tliem suitable and best. Both the joint and several rei)orts 

 are alike made evidence. I do not say they are made evidence of equal 

 value, but they are both made evidence for the information of this 

 Tribunal. 



Besides that, we have, from each side, a very large number of deposi- 

 tions of witnesses whose testimony has been taken, ex parte^ of conrse, 

 because tliere was no opi)ortunity for cross-examination; but never- 

 theless they are a source of information of the character of testimony, 

 the best which the nature of the case admits of; and botli parties 

 have resorted to tliem. Upon two of those desci})tions of evidence I 

 have an observation to make as to their relative and comparative 

 utility and trustworthiness before this body. First let me sjjcak in 

 reference to the depositions of the witnesses. These will be found, to 

 a certain extent concurring, and to a certain extent, conflicting. They 

 are the depositions of witnesses whose characters, stations and appar- 

 ent trustworthiness are very different. We have some of great intel- 

 ligence, and supposed im]>artiality, who have had opportunities of 

 observing the habits of these animals; and among these may be 

 mentioned the various agents of the United States, and of the lessees 

 of the United States, who have lived upon these islands for years and 

 made the seals a subject of observation. Obviously the testimony of 

 those men, intelligent observers, is entitled to very great weight. In 

 the next place there are depositions of other witnesses who have visited 

 the islands for other reasons, but have liad means of observation, not 

 so extensive as those to whom I have alluded, but still good means of 

 observation; and their evidence is also of considerable weiglit. Tlien 

 we have the evidence of a great immber of what I may call common 

 witnesses — the Indians, the Aleuts, the natives on the islands; the 

 Indians along the shore; the Indians and whites engaged in pehigic 

 sealing. There are depositions in multitude from persons of that char- 

 acter and description. Their oi)portunitiess for observation are good. 

 The trouble about them is that they do not practice much care in 

 expressing themselves; and their trustworthiness is by no means so 

 good as the witnesses which I have before mentioned. We know that 

 they belong to a class whose characters, interests, and habits do not 

 furnish the strongest assurance that they are sjjeaking the truth; and 

 therefore the testimony of such witnesses must be taken with a consid- 

 erable — a very great — degree of caution. 



In the British Counter Case will be found various afiBdavits tending 

 to show that certain persons whose affidavits were given in the Case 

 of the United States were not correctly reported by the persons who 

 took their affidavits; statements by them that they did not say things 

 which were imputed to them; and those impeaching evidences go very 

 far, necessarily, to discredit those witnesses. Where it is shown that 

 a witness has made two d liferent statements at two different times, it 

 does not show, indeed, which one of the statements is true, or whether 

 either of them is true, but it does show that that witness is not to be 

 credited. The number of the instances, however, in which the testi- 

 mony of witnesses on the part of the United States has been success- 

 fully impeached on those grounds is comparatively small. The great 

 bulk of the testimony remains unimpeached. 



The value of testimony of this character depends very largely upon 

 whether the side against which it is, or is sought to be, used, has had 

 any opportunity of scrutinizing it, and of impeaching it in the various 

 ways in which the testimony of a witness can be impeached. If it 



