ORAL ARGUMENT OP JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 181 



passes that ordeal, that is one very considerable circumstance in its 

 favor, and it may be the more properly relied upon if it lias success- 

 fully i)assed such an ordeal as that. All the testimony of this character, 

 or substantially all, upon which tiie (.xoverument of the United States 

 relies has been freely and fully submitted to Great Britain and its agents 

 for the pnrposes of criticism and impeachment. The testimony on the 

 part of Great Britain of the same character, however, has never been 

 submitted to us. I have already remarked in s^ieaking ujion one of the 

 motions made at the preliminary hearings before the Tribunal of the 

 inequality to which the United States was subjected m that particular. 

 I have remarked upon the plain and obvious advantages which Great 

 Britain enjoyed in the way of refuting, criticising and impeaching the 

 testimony of our witnesses. I have now to say, in view of the circum- 

 stance that ours was freely submitted to them, and that they chose, 

 without any good reason, to reserve theirs from our criticism, that ours 

 is entitled to the greater credit wherever they come in conflict. 



So much for the testimony of these witnesses. I am not going to 

 criticise them in detail because I have not the time. That work will 

 be done by another. But I have something to say in reference to the 

 comparative merits of these joint and several reports of Commissioners. 



Senator Morgan. Mr. Carter, is there any motion to exclude that 

 part of the testimony in the British Counter Case — on the ground that 

 it ought to have gone into the Case? 



Mr. Carter. No; we have made none. No motion of that kind is 

 made. I have pointed out the difhculties which would attend tlie mak- 

 ing of such a motion; the embarrassing results which success upon 

 such a motion would lead to; and the final conclusion of the counsel 

 for the United States that they would, on the whole, accei)t that tes- 

 timony, and deal with it — with its weight, its credibility and its trust- 

 worthiness — by bringing to bear ui)0u it the considerations which I 

 have now mentioned. In commenting upon its weight and trustworth- 

 iness before this Tribunal, we shall rely upon the circumstance that 

 our testimony of tliis sort was submitted to our opponents and they 

 carefully reserved theirs from our attack. 



As to these Eeports: What was the i)urpose for which these Joint 

 Conunissioners were appointed? J have spoken to that point already 

 in what I said upon the argument of the motion to wiiich 1 have 

 referred. The idea was originally suggested in the scheme of settle- 

 ment which Sir Julian Pauncefote proposed to Mr. Blaine. 



Senator Morgan. You mean the draft convention? 



Mr. Carter. That draft convention, in 1890. The suggestion came 

 from Sir Julian Pauncefote that the two Governments were not agreed 

 as to what the facts were in reference to seal life, and the modes by 

 which the seals were pursued upon the sea and upon the islands. His 

 notion was that if they were agreed upon the facts it would probably 

 be easy to settle the controversy by a convention, and that the proper 

 course was to make an attempt to arrive at an agreement upon the 

 facts by appointing men of intelligence, men of science — in one word 

 experts — whose testimony could be trusted; make them joint commis- 

 sioners, send them out to the islands; have them make an investiga- 

 tion of all the facts connected with seal life and the methods by which 

 seals were pursued, and report the facts and report what in their opin- 

 ion would be proper regulations designed to preserve the seals from 

 extermination. The idea, therefore, assumed that these joint commis- 

 sioners were persons who were entirely to be trusted — trusted as to 

 their intelligence, as to their impartiality, as to their scientific attain- 



