INVESTIGATION" OP THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OP ALASKA. 595 



which members of a committee of this character should conduct it — 

 that language of that kind ought not to be allowed at all. There is 

 no necessity of getting into a personal wrangle or controversy. The 

 putting of questions of that kind, as to whether it is true or false, is 

 entirely unnecessary, it is unparliamentary, and not only that, but it 

 brings us into disrepute as a committee and lowers the dignity of 

 this committee, and I think the questions should be put and answers 

 should be made in an orderly, dignified, and respectful way. 



Mr. Stephens. Further than that, it is asking the opinion of the 

 witness, and not calling for a statement of fact. What we are after 

 is a statement of facts. 



Mr. McGuire. Let me ask this question: Will it be satisfactory to 

 the members of the committee if I ask purely legal questions of the 

 witness ? 



Mr. Watkixs. I think so, of course, but I do not consider that is 

 a proper question at all to bring up a matter of personal controversy 

 and to lower the dignity of the committee by putting questions of 

 that character, which will bring about a friction between the wit- 

 nesses, which is entirely uncalled for and unnecessary. 



Mr. McGuire. Does the gentleman contend that the question 

 which I asked was not a purely legal question, and one which would 

 be admitted, under proper circumstances and conditions, in a court 

 of law ? 



Mr. Watkixs. So far as my experience as a lawyer for thirty-odd 

 years' standing goes, it would not be; it would not be allowed in a 

 court of law. 



Mr. McGuere. I think I understand something of the rules of evi- 

 dence. I have practiced for 16 years in the courts of the United 

 States and various courts of the country, and that is a perfectly 

 proper question, as I understand the law. 



Mr. Bruckner. I am glad I am not a lawyer! [Laughter.] 



Mr. Stephexs. Let him give the facts and we will draw the con- 

 clusions ourselves. 



Mr. McGuere. But here has arisen a question of evidence. 



Mr. Stephexs. Who is the judge of that, this committee or the 

 witness ? 



Mr. McGuire. The gentleman (Mr. Watkins) states I am wrong 

 as a matter of evidence. My contention is that I am right, as a 

 matter of evidence. I am perfectly willing to produce the authori- 

 ties. So far as the dignity of the committee is concerned, I think 

 the dignity of the committee was seriously challenged when Mr. 

 Elliott was sent to the islands with a record here of a law violator. 



Mr. Stephexs. Who ? 



Mr. McGuire. Elliott. • 



Mr. Stephexs. That is a serious charge you are making. That 

 will require some proof. 



Mr. McGuire. I have the proof all right. It is undenied. 



Mr. Elliott. Where ? 



Mr. McGuire. That he used Senator Burnham's frank, and the 

 evidence is before this committee that Senator Burnham repudi- 

 ated it. 



Mr. Elliott. I deny the statement. You have not proved it, not 

 a scintilla of it. There is not a fragment of proof of that. 



